Wednesday, 11 December 2019

WEDNESDAY, 11 DECEMBER 2019

WEDNESDAY, 11 DECEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to deliver record investment in infrastructure. Today’s package includes $6.8 billion of new transport projects, with a significant portion for roads and rail; $400 million of upgrades and maintenance for schools; $300 million of regional investment opportunities; $300 million of investment in our hospitals and health infrastructure; and $200 million of projects to reduce emissions. With New Zealand’s low debt and borrowing costs, this is the right time to invest to futureproof New Zealand, after nine years of neglected infrastructure under the National Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: How has she let the economy move into deficit in just two years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would point out that the last Government was more often in deficit than it was not. I’d also like to point out, of course, that a substantial amount of the short-term temporary deficit that we will experience and then move swiftly out of does relate to forecasts around ACC. Of course, as the member will know, they are feeling the effects of the global downturn, as most economies are experiencing at present. I’d also point out that we’ve already had $13 billion worth of forecast surplus, and we are forecast to run another $12 billion worth of surpluses, which is noteworthy indeed.

SPEAKER: I just want to say to the House that I received some very favourable comments yesterday about the tone of the House and the fact that people were—

Hon Member: Oh yeah.

SPEAKER: Who interjected then? Who made that comment? Who made the comment? Someone on my left made a loud comment then. Who was it? That will have a universal punishment as a result. I’m going to ask the Prime Minister to continue. I’m going to reiterate the comment that I was making. I got positive feedback yesterday from the fact that people could hear answers and people were not shouted down. Can I encourage people to continue that—and right from the first question, there’s been an attempt to shout down the Minister giving a reply.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the public reaction that you’ve been made aware of to yesterday’s question time session was largely due to the sombre nature of the day, but also the fact that, in recognising the sombre nature, there were very clear and specific answers from Ministers and there was a notable absence of the sort of political flick that we just saw from the Prime Minister. When those occur, as you’ve observed yourself, then naturally there will be some kind of reaction, and that is not unreasonable.

SPEAKER: I totally agree with the member, but the reaction should not be unreasonable.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister accept that, on becoming Prime Minister, Treasury forecast surpluses as far as they make projections, to 2032?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the member will be well aware that, in the intervening period, we have entered into a process where the International Monetary Fund, OECD—we are seeing a downgrading of forecasts across the board, almost. Global growth is declining, and that is a result, obviously, of trade wars and other significant events that have led us to have the same experience as many other economies that we would compare ourselves to.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the reality that prices in terms of meat, horticulture, and dairy have simply never been better, and the only thing that’s changed is her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why do Treasury forecasts today show 14 of the next 15 years to be in cash deficit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First, I’d point out the different measures that the member is using there. The second point that I would make is that, actually, on every measure that is commonly used—GDP growth: we’re sitting, on average, at rates of 2.5; under the last Government, it was more like 2.1. Employment: 4.2 percent; under the last Government, we inherited it at 4.7. Wage growth: on average, 3.5 percent; in the last Government’s first term, 2.1. Debt: at our highest point in the forecast, we’re looking at 21.5 percent relative to GDP; we inherited it at 22.9. So the point I would make to the member is that if, on the forecasts he’s seen, and on the reality that we have presented as a Government, he considers that inadequate, I would ask him to reflect on his own Government’s last record, because relative to them we are doing very, very well.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will she confirm that her Government is breaching its pledge on Budget responsibility rules by borrowing more?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two points. No. Of course, we met the debt to GDP ratio that we set ourselves in our first two Budgets. The member well knows we then took the advice of Treasury, and the advice and belief of many others, that we should move to a range. That is what we’ve adopted. Not only are we within that range with the forecasts the member’s seen today; we’re well within it. Again, I would point out that, at its highest point, we’re looking at a debt to GDP ratio of 21.5. When we inherited the economy from the last Government, it was at 22.9.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was the Budget responsibility pledge only for the first two Budgets of this Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member well knows it was across a forecast period. Not only, as I’ve said, did we meet that for those first two Budgets; we moved to a range which, of course, has been well publicised, well documented, and well endorsed by commentators.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t it the case that no significant transport infrastructural projects will be started by this Government before the next election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: What projects will be started in transport before the next election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve previously discussed in this House, in July 2018, funding was approved for the Awakino Tunnel bypass. Construction starts July—[Interruption] Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Construction starts in July 2019. We’ve funded Loop Road; construction starts in February 2019. Ōpōnoni—again, I point out funding and beginning: funding approved May 2018, construction starts March 2019. State Highway 1, Waipapa, State Highway 10, Ladies Mile Corridor, Edendale—I could go on, but the point stands that we’ve not only approved funding but started construction on a number of projects. As the member also knows, under the last Government, their transport spending was $3.7 billion. Under us, it’s $4.5 billion, and we’ve just added another $6.8 billion. Again, our investment has been significant.

Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was wondering if the Prime Minister could table this document. It might help out the Leader of the Opposition for further questions moving forward.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to ask, first of all, is it an official document that the Prime Minister is quoting from?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My understanding is that this is information that’s available freely from the New Zealand Transport Agency, and I have shared in the House before. The member just continues to ask the question. I’m happy to keep providing it.

SPEAKER: It’s a matter for the Minister to table it if she wants to. It’s not an official document. If the Minister wants to table it, she can. There is no requirement to table it.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just confirm that it’s publicly available, so I’ll stick with convention. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Members, especially experienced members and those who have been in these buildings for a period of time, know that it is often the habit of Ministers to do notes on top of briefing notes that they have, and those are never tabled.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the reason why no specific infrastructure projects have been announced today is because the Government has no plan and doesn’t know how to deliver?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are we wasting a term as the economy runs down and no significant infrastructure starts?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I point out the ambiguity of that last question. It would more appropriately apply to the person asking the question than against the Government, when the Prime Minister has already laid out, and so has the Minister of Finance today, categorically the level of expenditure that’s going in.

SPEAKER: Yes. While I, and I’m sure most members of the House, would always like questions to logically flow from answers that have been there beforehand, we’ve never managed to achieve that standard in the House, and I’m certainly not going to try and enforce it.

SPEAKER: Question number two, Dr Deborah Russell.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Supplementary question, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not a supplementary question. I said a point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Your response to the Rt Hon Winston Peters was appropriate, but it didn’t deal with the fact that he was suggesting that the Opposition should actually swallow hook, line, and sinker everything the Prime Minister says.

SPEAKER: Now, the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point of order was marginal. The Hon Gerry Brownlee’s wasn’t even close.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made about Government investment to boost the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today, I announced that the Government is lifting capital investment by $12 billion to the highest level in more than 20 years in order to futureproof the New Zealand economy. Of this increase, we have allocated $8 billion for specific capital projects and we have increased the multi-year capital allowance for future Budgets by $4 billion. This Government inherited a huge infrastructure challenge when we took office including rundown hospitals, roads that were announced but not paid for, overcrowded classrooms, and a State housing shortage. This package shows New Zealanders that this Government is serious about investing in our economy and our prosperity.

Dr Deborah Russell: What sectors will the additional capital be invested in?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s $8 billion immediate capital investment package includes $6.8 billion for new transport projects, with a significant portion going to roads and rail; $300 million for district health board asset renewal; $200 million for public estate decarbonisation such as removing coal boilers from schools, hospitals, and other public assets; up to $300 million for regional investment opportunities that do not fit within the criteria of the Provincial Growth Fund; and the previously announced $400 million one-off increase to schools’ capital funding. We believe that the time is right for this further capital investment in New Zealand. The cost of borrowing is low, the projects are there to be done, and the books are in good shape, and this will boost the economy.

Dr Deborah Russell: How will this package help boost the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The New Zealand economy is still forecast to grow solidly and grow at a rate faster than many of our trading partners, but this increased investment will provide a further boost for the New Zealand economy in the face of slower than forecast growth and stronger global headwinds. These new investments will increase the size of the economy and will have further positive impacts on GDP beyond the forecast period. The capital investment will provide a combination of shorter-term spending to support economic activity as well as the certainty of medium- and long-term investments that will provide business with a pipeline of Government demand going into the future.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why have median rents gone up $55 since she’s been Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As was discussed in the House yesterday, there is some dispute over the figures that the member tends to continue to use. He doesn’t, for instance, take into account the outliers in some of those numbers and use what is commonly used as a geometric mean. On those figures, my understanding is that some of those increases are more like $16.

Hon Simon Bridges: What effect does she think the significant increases in rent are having on poverty in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, this is a Government absolutely committed to making sure that rather than things like tax cuts, which do not have a measurable impact on benefiting those in the same way that we can with targeted tax credits, the same impact on low and middle income earners—that’s, of course, why as a Government we prioritise the Families Package over tax cuts. On the housing market, and on rents in particular, the biggest difference we can make is to supply. We have invested heavily in increasing the amount of State housing stock; several thousand houses are currently under construction, over 3,000 places created under this Government—we’re building more than any other Government since the 1970s. Those are things that do have a measurable impact. We acknowledge we, of course, do want to see those rents much more stable than they have been.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will we see the 18c to 32c decreases in petrol prices that Kris Faafoi spoke of last week?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this is something I traversed yesterday. The Minister, responding to the Commerce Commission, has acknowledged—as I would hope the Opposition would—that the Commerce Commission has done a piece of work that shows that consumers are paying more than they should be, and that there are things that we as a Government can do to rectify what’s going on in the market. So whilst I’m not going to predict the final impact of that for consumers, it’s far better than doing nothing, and I don’t suppose that the member would support us leaving it as the status quo.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will we see any meaningful changes and decreases in petrol prices given changes her Government may make before the election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member well knows, we have already heard from the Commerce Commission that they believe a difference will be made by a more transparent wholesale pricing regime through greater contractual freedoms—and there are terms to facilitate wholesale competition—they believe even that transparency around pricing of premium products will make a difference, and in introducing an enforceable industry code of conduct. So those are all things that we as a Government are pursuing, and we intend to expedite that. I look forward to the member’s support.

Hon Simon Bridges: How can we trust her Government when petrol prices have gone from $1.91 to $2.13 a litre on her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because we have brought in the Commerce Commission to analyse what’s gone on in the market; they have pointed to the fact that we have seen changes over the last decade that are inexplicable to the pricing. So that’s why not only can they focus on the fact that we’ve done something about that via the Commerce Commission, we then intend to implement the recommendations they’ve made. I do note that the last Government chose not to do that, and we didn’t, therefore, see the impacts that I hope these changes will make.

Hon Simon Bridges: So will we see price decreases before the election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What we’ll see is a response and an implementation of the Commerce Commission’s recommendation, which, again, is more—is more—than what we saw under the last Government.

Question No. 4—Education

4. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen on the Government’s investment for 2,050 State schools so that they can upgrade their property over the next 24 months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Over the next two years, the Government will be injecting an additional $400 million capital investment into school properties. Makikihi School has said that the extra $50,000 that they are getting will mean that they can revamp their two multi-level classrooms quicker and fix their roofs that weren’t covered by their original budget. Waimataitai School have said that the $339,000 of funding that they got meant that they were relieved they’d be able to complete a job properly, rather than patching things up. The New Zealand School Trustees Association have said that the Government announcement is a good way for school boards of trustees to end the school year.

Mark Patterson: What does the school property funding recently announced by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Clutha-Southland?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 58 schools in Clutha-Southland who’ll be receiving a total of over $6 million to upgrade their classrooms and other property, including Gore High School, who’ll be getting $334,000; Rosebank School in Balclutha, they’ll be getting $178,000; West Gore School, who’ll be getting $159,000; and Milton School, who’ll be receiving $108,000.

Angie Warren-Clark: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in the Bay of Plenty?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 21 schools in the Bay of Plenty. They’ll receive a total of around $5 million to upgrade their school property and bring forward their upgrade works. That includes schools like Te Puna School, who’ll be getting $158,000; Tahatai Coast School will be receiving $400,000; Arataki School will be getting $341,000.

Hon Aupito William Sio: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Māngere?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 21 schools in Māngere who’ll be receiving over $6 million to upgrade their classrooms and their property, including Papatoetoe North School, who will be getting $400,000; Nga Iwi School, who’ll be getting $261,000; and Māngere East School, who will receive $400,000. Schools up and down the country will benefit over the next two years from the significant investment in additional funding in their facilities, as will businesses up and down the country who will be engaged to do that work?

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his policies and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were undertaken. In particular, I stand by my action today to announce $12 billion of additional capital spending to tackle the infrastructure challenge we were left with and boost the New Zealand economy in the face of global economic headwinds.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How is it possible that he could take an economy growing strongly and surpluses as far as the eye can see and turn that into a slowly growing economy and deficit in just two years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As already traversed in the questions to the Prime Minister, we have seen a significant downgrading of global growth right across the board. That has a flow-on effect to the New Zealand economy. What we do know is that the New Zealand economy continues to outperform many of our trading partners, including Australia, Canada, Japan, the UK, and the euro area. We are not unaffected by global slowdown, but we are managing the books carefully and well and making the investments New Zealanders need us to make.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can New Zealanders have any faith that this won’t be the first of many deficits?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reason they can have faith in that is because of what was released today by the Treasury, which shows that we go back into surplus and we have $12 billion worth of surpluses in the forecast period.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he now regret his Government cancelling or postponing several major transport infrastructure projects that were consented and ready to go in the first two years of his Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, because the premise of that question is incorrect. In the first two years, what we had to do was fix up mouldy and leaky hospitals, rebuild school classrooms and approve new school classrooms, and begin a new transport programme. What we have announced today is a big and significant boost to a number of areas of capital spending, including over $6.8 billion for transport-related projects. The difference between what we’ve announced today and what the member is referring to is that we’ve actually funded it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did his Government feel the need to make its promise over debt levels because New Zealanders don’t trust Labour Governments to live within their means?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, did his Government, in the Speech from the Throne, feel the need to make its promise over debt levels because it worried that New Zealanders do not trust Labour Governments to live within their means?

SPEAKER: Closer.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What we did was we inherited a net debt level of 22.9 percent. We took that down to under 20 percent. And, in the forecast released today, it will peak at 21.5 percent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance that if dedicating expenditure to projects amounts to what Mr Goldsmith said in the House today—that announcing is not delivering—does it nevertheless sure beat announcing without any dedication of funds whatsoever?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, it most certainly does, because the problem for the Government was that we inherited a series of promises around transport. Many of those were not funded. The announcement we have made today, on top of the $17.7 billion already being spent in the National Land Transport Fund, represents, as I have said, the biggest capital spending we’ve seen in 20 years.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he promise that the projects funded by his new borrowing will be more successful than KiwiBuild?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The projects that we have committed ourselves to today will play a very important role in lifting the productivity of New Zealand, of giving certainty, and they will deliver. And—I will repeat my earlier answer—this is actual funding for actual projects rather than the ghost roads.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Minister give effect to his statement that our planet cannot continue to sustain growth that is built on burning more and more fossil fuels through directing ACC to divest nearly one billion dollars in fossil fuel investment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we traversed earlier in the House last week, I understand that this is an important issue for many New Zealanders. We have seen the Super Fund take the lead in this regard, and I have written to all of the Crown financial institutions asking them to ensure that they continue to support the overall goals of the Government as we move towards, for example, a low carbon economy.

Question No. 6—Economic Development

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all of his Government’s policies and actions on economic development?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, especially our Government’s commitment to invest in the infrastructure our economy needs, including the Minister of Finance’s announcement today that the Government will invest $12 billion more in essential infrastructure, the highest in more than 20 years.

Chris Bishop: What does it say about the Government’s record on economic development that today’s figures show economic growth has been slashed, tax revenues are down, and debt is on the rise?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we know that there are heightened global headwinds that are feeding through to uncertainty, like the US-China trade war, like Brexit and geopolitical tensions. There’s no question that these have had an effect on us and all of our trading partners, but the forecasts show that the economy is predicted to grow, on average, at 2.5 percent over the forecast period. That’s faster than Australia, the UK, the US, Canada, Japan, and the eurozone. Unemployment is forecast to stay low, business investment is forecast to increase as a result of the Government’s announcement today on infrastructure investment, and GDP growth is forecast at 2.8 percent next year. In the pre-election economic and fiscal update before we took office, it was only forecast to be 2.2 percent in that year.

Chris Bishop: What responsibility does he take for the domestic uncertainty weighing on those responsible for driving economic growth?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: None at all. We have a bigger pipeline of capital investment and infrastructure than that Government did. We are currently spending in transport. We are spending $4.5 billion this year. The former Government only spent $3.8 billion on transport. We are the Government of infrastructure, not the Government of rhetoric that that party was.

Chris Bishop: Well, just in relation to that last comment, can he name a single major project that has started in the last two years that will drive economic development through infrastructure spending?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, the replacement of the Manawatū Gorge State highway. It’s a major State highway project. The former Government didn’t do it and we are.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Minister familiar with this graph on net capital spending, which shows that, in the years from 2009 through to 2017, capital spending stayed extremely low, and shows the forecast for an extremely large increase in capital spending in the future?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have seen that graph and the data it’s based on, and I think it shows that some people talk about infrastructure; other people do it.

Chris Bishop: Just in relation to that last comment, does he stand by that comment in light of repeated commitments to start a light rail project for which nothing has happened in the last two years?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of the member’s question, and I remind the member that some of the former National Government’s so-called roads of national significance took seven years from announcement until they were built. That Government postponed the City Rail Link in Auckland by five years. They said they wouldn’t build light rail in Auckland for another 30 years. We’re getting on and doing it.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that a significant amount of things like planning and consenting for some of those roads of national significance—like Transmission Gully, for example—happened under the last Labour Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s correct, and the former Government, on the question of delivery of roads, distinguished themselves on a record of promising ghost roads and bridges that they never ever built.

Question No. 7—Civil Defence

7. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What actions have the National Emergency Management Agency taken in response to the eruption on Whakaari / White Island?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): As per the response delivered on my behalf yesterday by the Hon Grant Robertson, the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) is still coordinating the all-of-Government response to the eruption and ensuring that the focus is on keeping people at the centre of the response. To ensure public safety and wellbeing, the National Emergency Management Agency has created a national action plan to coordinate support at the national level for the delivery of essential services to affected families. The plan coordinates the specific actions required by each agency going forward, which will also continue throughout recovery.

Tamati Coffey: Where can people affected by the emergency seek financial support?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Extra support is available to people affected by the White Island eruption. Work and Income can help with financial support to those impacted, including for loss of income and housing assistance. ACC can provide support to those who were injured or have lost a family member as well as payment for medical care. For further details, I encourage the public to go to the Government’s factsheet, which can be found on NEMA’s website: civildefence.govt.nz

Tamati Coffey: Where can people seek support—mental health support—if they are feeling distressed?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The events from the other day have had a significant impact on the community. It is normal to feel upset following an event like this. If people need support or advice, they can text or phone 1737 to speak to a trained counsellor. Several organisations are also providing emotional and mental wellbeing services to those impacted by this event, including Red Cross, Victim Support, and the cruise-line company for Ovation of the Seas, Royal Caribbean International.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: What was the number of elective patients funded by DHBs and discharged from surgical specialties in 2018/19, and how does that compare to 2017/18?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Our public health service is delivering more care to more people than ever before. We’re seeing more acute surgeries and more non-admitted procedures delivered by DHBs, and, for the first time ever, the number of discharges from our hospitals has topped one million. Elective surgery discharges are part of a wider measure—planned care. There were 268,747 planned care procedures completed in 2018-19, including 199,080 elective surgeries. The total number of planned care procedures is 5,000 more than the year before. In 2017/18, there were 203,458 elective surgeries.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the target of an increase in the volume of elective surgeries by an average of 4,000 discharges per year, as described on the Ministry of Health website, still in place?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government is focused on planned care, which is about making sure more New Zealanders have access to more services. There are a wide range of measures—dozens—across the system which continue to be measured, because we want to ensure that there’s a system-wide response and that our healthcare services are delivering more care over time to more people.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was straightforward but wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: I think the member does know, though—I think the question was addressed, but the member does know he cannot insist on a yes or no answer.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: No. Quite right.

SPEAKER: I think it was addressed but you didn’t get a yes/no answer—Speaker’s Ruling 171/4 or 171/5, somewhere around there from memory.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the 4,000 increase target is no longer in place, why did the Government invest $31.5 million in Vote Health 2018-19 to “support the delivery of the Electives … Target. The output is the agreed Health Target discharges,”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Elective surgeries are not the only measure of success in our public health service. What New Zealanders want, and what I want, is that people get the appropriate care they need when they need it. Overall, we’ve seen an increase in planned care, which covers electives as well as minor operations, including many eye procedures, some gynaecological procedures, and skin lesion removals. In 2018-19 there were around 5,000 more planned care interventions than the previous year. We’re treating more people in the right clinical setting, which is more appropriate and efficient.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Isn’t he just fudging the numbers in that the actual number is not only 5,775 fewer than the previous year but 9,775 fewer than the Government actually planned for?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Question No. 9—Housing (Public Housing)

9. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): How many reports, if any, of instances of anti-social behaviour by state or emergency housing tenants have there been since this Government took office?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Kāinga Ora provide over 65,000 properties to over 185,000 women and children. They have advised me that, for the period from 31 October 2017 to 31 November 2019, there have been an average of 970 reports of antisocial behaviour per month. Reports of antisocial behaviour by tenants include such things as car noise, frequency of visitors, lawns not being mowed, and dogs. Over the period the member has asked, there have been a total of 24,386 reports of antisocial behaviour to Kāinga Ora, and this is consistent with the reported instances under the previous Government. While many reports are found to have no merit, Kāinga Ora works closely with people who make complaints about tenants, as we acknowledge living next to a disruptive neighbour can be stressful. Reports of antisocial behaviour by emergency housing tenants cannot be quantified. This would require a file-by-file analysis across multiple providers, and that data is not available.

Simon O’Connor: What does he say to neighbours of some State house tenants, who have to put up with rubbish being continually dumped on their property, loud music, residents parked—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask no more than two supplementary questions. He’s up to three already.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I acknowledged, sometimes living next to a disruptive neighbour can cause stress. I would ask that if those neighbours of tenants have not already asked for help from Kāinga Ora, they do so, because the complaints process is making sure that they are looked after.

Simon O’Connor: How many people, if any, have been evicted for antisocial behaviour from State houses since the Labour Government took office?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Termination—or eviction—of a tenancy is only considered an option if circumstances place staff, contractors, or the public at serious risk. Sometimes, to sustain a tenancy, Kāinga Ora may need to find a tenant a more appropriate home to live in, which may be with another housing provider. Kāinga Ora and emergency housing providers will refer cases to police when the behaviour is illegal. I will add that we aren’t following the previous Government’s policy of having no compassion, because if we make an eviction and don’t find an alternative means of accommodation for those tenants, they will end up coming back to us in the end.

Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not answered. It was quite specific about how many. We got a fantastic, broad explanation, or justification, but I did ask how many, and it was a pretty straight question.

SPEAKER: I think the question was addressed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member has put his finger on it, but mistakenly so. This Minister of housing is not responsible for any Labour Government. There is a lexicon in this business since the election in 2017—[Interruption]—and there has been for 27 years—and here we are, a Minister being asked for responsibility—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. The two members who interjected then will stand—

Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m trying to—I’m waiting for the second person even to look in my direction at the moment. That member will withdraw and apologise.

Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I think the member had made his point by way of point of order.

Simon O’Connor: So does he consider it fair that almost 14,000 of our most vulnerable families are being forced to wait on the social housing wait-list while people are abusing the generosity of the State?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: What I find is unfair is that the previous Government didn’t do anything about the demand in housing, and if they had built to the level at which we are, there would be no housing register.

Marama Davidson: How does this Government plan to support the wellbeing of State house tenants with complex needs, ensuring they can remain in their homes?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: In the context of the primary question, if there are complaints from neighbours of Kāinga Ora tenants, Kāinga Ora works very closely with those tenants to have a management plan. As you can imagine, some of those tenants may have complex issues such as mental health issues or drug and alcohol issues to manage, and simply not dealing with those, and perhaps taking the attitude of the previous Government, only pushes the problem out further.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he think it’s fair that there are over 14,000 people on the State house wait-list, largely as a consequence of the fact that the previous Government failed to build State houses and, in fact, sold them off? If they had built at the same rate—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! The member had her two, and she was attempting to make a speech. Therefore, I will rule that question out. If the member had been listening to her colleague, she would have heard the question answered anyway.

Question No. 10—Police

10. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What actions have the Police taken in response to the eruption on Whakaari / White Island?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Police are working hard to ascertain whether it is safe to land on the island to recover the victims. Please let me assure the House and the people of New Zealand that this is a police priority. Results from a flight that collected gas samples on Tuesday afternoon are currently being analysed, and this is important for understanding the processes driving volcanic activity and assessing deployment risk. The New Zealand Defence Force and Fire and Emergency New Zealand staff also launched a drone at 8.30 this morning, and information from this surveillance will help inform decisions by police. Police will work closely with WorkSafe and the coroner in their investigations, and police continue to support families of victims on the ground, with the assistance of local iwi, Red Cross, and Victim Support. As I said yesterday in the House, the bottom line is that police are doing all they possibly can in what is a tragic and significant event. For now, our duty and priority is a return of people’s loved ones to them. I am confident that police are doing all they can to achieve this.

Ginny Andersen: What advice has he seen from scientists about the likely conditions that police recovery teams would face following the eruption at Whakaari / White Island?

Hon STUART NASH: GNS Science (GNS) has advised that at around 4 this morning the level of volcanic tremor significantly increased on Whakaari. Ongoing monitoring by GNS suggests continuing high gas pressures within the volcano. Poisonous and corrosive gases such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, and sulphur dioxide are, I understand, present. High levels of these gases can make it difficult to breathe, can cause loss of consciousness and damage airways and internal organs, and, in extreme cases, can kill people. The conditions are compounded by volatile jets of super-hot steam and mud in several sites. GNS reports that the situation remains highly uncertain as to future activity, and eruptions in the next 24 hours are still likely to occur. I’m advised that those who will be deployed to the island, which will include members of the police disaster victim identification team, will encounter serious physical and chemical hazards. It is a contaminated site that requires the utmost precautions, and police need to prepare for the conditions to ensure their people understand the risks and can do their job safely.

Ginny Andersen: What advice has he received from police about the victim identification process?

Hon STUART NASH: Since yesterday, it has been confirmed that six people are now confirmed deceased, eight people are unaccounted for, and up to 25 people of the 31 patients in specialist burn units have critical injuries. Police and Health and others are moving as fast and as carefully as they can. Post-mortem examinations are being carried out in Auckland today by specialist forensic pathologists. Disaster victim identification is extremely difficult in cases like this, where there are serious burns. Sadly, visual identification is not possible. It is poor practice to rely on visual identification alone. There have been cases of mistaken identity in the past when visual identity has been solely relied on. It is always a challenge when there is a mass fatality event. We want to reunite families with the bodies of their loved ones as soon as we can.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Agriculture: What were the key conclusions of the high-level advice his Ministry for Primary Industries officials said they provided him with to support the Essential Freshwater work programme proposals?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: On behalf of the Minister, I will mention two: firstly, that New Zealand needs to do better to protect our waterways and the brand values that underpin our export returns; and, secondly, that for many farmers who are already doing great work, the cost will be minimal. They accept we must protect our natural environment.

Todd Muller: What is his response to DairyNZ’s multiple - peer reviewed economic modelling that shows the Essential Freshwater policy package is one of the largest economic challenges posed to the dairy sector in a generation, potentially costing up to $6 billion a year by 2050?

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to rephrase the question to include either something from the question or the answer. The member asked about a completely different set of recommendations.

Todd Muller: What specific economic cost did the Ministry for Primary Industries suggest the Essential Freshwater reforms would have on rural New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That clearly depends on the catchment in question, the farm practice in question, and will vary. I would note that, overall, costs will be much lower than the recent increases in returns to farmers from the prices that are being received under this Government—in no small part because the exchange rate has settled to a more realistic level for New Zealand under this Government’s policies.

Todd Muller: Is he saying that the recent adjustment in offshore market returns is going to compensate the industry’s assessment of the cost being $60 billion, or $6 billion a year, by 2050?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I didn’t say that, and it wasn’t even in the member’s question. Now that it’s in this question, I would refute that. I would note that one of the cost assumptions in the DairyNZ modelling is that it assumes that no change was required under the 2017 national policy statement of the prior Government and asserts that it’s a cost of this package. We don’t think that’s correct.

Todd Muller: What does he say to the chief executive of Rabobank, who, in the recent survey released two days ago, suggested that those future costs in Government policy were driving the level of sentiment in the sector that has not been seen in a generation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would disagree. I would say that there’s a lot of good news out there. There are record prices, there’s a realistic exchange rate, there’s record low interest rates, and the only negativity seems to be both the tightening of credit from the banks themselves and the sentiment of the National Party.

Question No. 12—Education

12. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Education: What steps are the Government taking to better support pre-school children with learning support needs?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): In July this year, I launched the Learning Support Action Plan. Priority three of this plan is to strengthen early intervention by improving the type, mix, and volume of services available. As part of the learning support delivery model regions are implementing a range of local approaches to better meet demand for learning support in their communities. Children’s needs vary, and not everyone requires individualised specialist support. Many will benefit from advice or training for their whānau, their teachers, or the people they spend most time with. Local approaches reflect this and include providing initial advice and support more quickly through locally run clinics or hubs, or through establishing regular liaison visits where early learning teachers and parents can meet with professionals and discuss their concerns as they arise; building the skills and knowledge of whānau and early learning services through training, coaching, or team planning sessions so they can support their children more effectively; and working with partner organisations to ensure the most appropriate supports for a child is requested. We’re also working with Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust to co-design and deliver an awareness campaign to ensure parents and kaiako can identify needs and access the supports they require.

Mark Patterson: Where are these local approaches in place?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In the Wellington region, one of the new approaches being trialled with the 16 He Whānau Manaaki kindergartens in Porirua is to allocate ministry specialist staff as key workers for specific early learning centres. Learning support specialists visit regularly and respond on the spot to concerns. Over 100 families have met with our staff since the end of January 2019. They’ve all received support, ranging from advice and guidance to immediate allocation for a more tailored early intervention service. In Tai Rāwhiti, ministry specialists run awhi appointments, where whānau receive immediate advice and guidance about how to support their children’s communication. In Papakura, Franklin, and Manurewa, ministry staff have been working with Plunket on an initiative to better respond to need in the areas. Each month, a ministry speech language therapist and early intervention teacher spend the day at the Plunket rooms in Papakura and Franklin. Parents and whānau are able to meet with ministry specialists to discuss needs that have been identified through the regular Plunket check. In Otago-Southland, staff provide a liaison approach to supporting high-referring early learning services. Specialists visit the early learning service regularly and work with their management to identify children of concern who might need support, the nature of their needs, and how they might be addressed.

Mark Patterson: What has been the impact of these approaches, and is the answer to these needs all about money?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Despite supporting 636, or 5.8 percent, more children than the same time last year, waiting lists for early intervention supports are beginning to trend down and average waiting times are decreasing. While this Government has invested an extra $5.9 million into early intervention, the demand for services keeps increasing, so we need to find new and better ways to provide support for our preschool children.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I want to begin today by offering my heartfelt condolences to all of those affected by the eruption at Whakaari / White Island. As we heard in the House yesterday, both from the Government and from the Opposition, this Parliament is united in expressing not only our grief for those people but also our support for their friends and families. This is an unimaginable horror for people, particularly those who were on holiday. They were no doubt enjoying themselves, no doubt part of an excursion that they had been looking forward to, in some cases for years. To find themselves caught up in such a horrific situation makes this even worse. We think, particularly, of the families of those who are deceased and those who are unaccounted for. We also think of those who are in hospital, 25 of whom are in a critical condition, as the Minister of Police said today.

The experience, as has been outlined again by the Minister of Police, for those who are exposed to volcanic ash, is a horrendous one, and, at this time, I want to make a special note of the incredible work of burns specialists around the hospitals of New Zealand. Every major hospital in New Zealand mobilised its burns specialists within hours and was able to receive people within hours from Whakatāne. It has been a heroic effort once again by our medical professionals.

Alongside that, I want to make a special acknowledgement of all of the emergency services—police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the ambulance staff, the National Emergency Management Agency, and the local civil defence—and the members of the public, who have rallied round in a way that every single New Zealander can be incredibly proud of. This is an evolving situation, and it is challenging when we can’t be completely certain or provide that certainty. But we know that our emergency services are working towards that as fast as they possibly can.

Today, I was very proud to announce the Government’s $12 billion capital investment, lifting New Zealand’s capital investment to its highest level in more than 20 years. We took this step today to futureproof the New Zealand economy. We also took this step today because we inherited an infrastructure deficit. Every member of this House would be able to give an example of a hospital or a school or a rail line or a road that was left to rot under the last Government. But, if you want to know what an infrastructure deficit looks like, it looks like this. [Holds up graph showing net capital spending over time] It looks like years of low capital investment, years of failing to invest in what is needed. It is no different to any household. If you defer the maintenance, the problem gets worse. That is what we inherited, and that is why we are investing $50 billion in capital over the next five years. When we came into office, that was scheduled to be $30 billion. So we have nearly doubled that, and we are proud of that record, because in New Zealand there is a significant need for these projects.

But, beyond that, we have some of the lowest interest rates that we’ve seen in the world, and we also have an economy that is well positioned to be able to take on the additional borrowing that is required to be able to put these projects into place.

I am very pleased that we’re doing this. It builds on two Budgets of strong and consistent capital investment: $1.7 billion in our hospitals, $1.4 billion in our schools, $1 billion into KiwiRail, and the $17.7 billion that has been input into the National Land Transport Fund. And now we add to that. Not only does it benefit our economy overall; it gives certainty to our construction industry. Our $400 million going into schools—that’s the local tradies who benefit out of that. The big horizontal infrastructure projects—the pipeline is now there: $6.8 billion for new transport projects and money to decarbonise parts of the public sector, such as schools and hospitals who have those coal-fired boilers that we need to turn around.

This is the package of a Government that has its eye on the long-term wellbeing of New Zealanders. We are futureproofing our economy, and we are actually putting our money where our mouth is. No more ghost roads; these are the projects that will futureproof the New Zealand economy, and I am extremely proud of a Government that is being able to put this programme of work on top of what we have already done, in contrast to the previous Government. The negativity opposite is in contrast to the positive views of this side of the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I want to start by also acknowledging the families who have suffered great loss on White Island in the dreadful events. I want to acknowledge the hard work of all those working to save their lives in hospitals around the country and wish them all the very, very best.

How is it possible that we could go from a country that was growing quickly, which had surpluses as far as the eye could see, and in two short years—two short years—to take that to an economy which is growing slowly on a per person basis, in fact, hardly growing at all, and in deficit? Unbelievable incompetence to go from that situation two years ago to where we find ourselves today, in deficit. It will be the first of many deficits that this Government will deliver if they get any more chance, because we all know that they haven’t ever found a problem that they can’t solve by more spending.

Why is the economy slowing? So we’ve seen the half-yearly update released today. It was going to be 3 percent; now 2.2 percent on per person level—that’s only about 0.5 percent. Why are we slowing? Because this Government has got one hand dragging down the economy by adding costs, by creating massive policy uncertainty wherever you look, and so that the natural reaction of people who would invest to grow the economy is to keep their hands in their pocket and wait to figure out what this Government is doing.

Then we’ve seen all the incompetence through KiwiBuild and, in particular, in infrastructure. It’s amazing the gall that we have of the Minister of Finance to turn up and say, “We are the infrastructure party.” They’ve done nothing for two years. The only thing they did in infrastructure in this Government for two years has been to cancel all the roading projects that National had on the go because Julie Anne Genter believes that she should never give in to the car fascists, and because Phil Twyford thinks that we’ve over-invested in roads.

So they cancelled them all for ideological reasons—have done nothing. They’ve severed the infrastructure pipeline. People are heading off overseas, the builders. And now they come in and say they’re going to spend up big. Well, we don’t trust them and we don’t believe them. Why don’t we believe them? Because they haven’t delivered in the past and they won’t deliver now. The Prime Minister seems to think that announcing something is all you need to do, and that’s the same as delivering.

The Faafoi defence perfectly encapsulates how this Government operates. He says, “Don’t worry, I’m on to it, bro. I’ve got a plan, but I’ve done absolutely nothing.” And that’s how this Government operates. That perfectly encapsulates how this Government operates—big talk, no action. That’s why New Zealanders will be looking at this big number—$12 billion they are going to spend over the next 10 years or however long it is—and they have no confidence that anything will be delivered, because they can’t deliver.

What’s happened with infrastructure? What have they done? Well, they’ve cancelled a whole lot of projects and then they’ve talked about the slow tram down Dominion Road. We still don’t know—two years after this Government has started—what the purpose of this slow tram is. Is it to go to the airport quickly or is it some urban regeneration project? Don’t know. Two years—they still haven’t worked out what the project is.

And then, of course, we’ve got big talk around the ports from Shane Jones. What a disgrace to go about a massive infrastructure question—which is an important question, one that we should be considering, but which would have impact and consequences for decades to come—and have that driven by some kind of backroom deal between Shane Jones and a Prime Minister determined to announce something. That is no way to make major infrastructure decisions, and we need to take these things far more seriously.

Now, if KiwiBuild is anything to go by, all the announcements that have been made today, as vague as they are, won’t lead to the results that New Zealanders need to see and want to see in terms of providing the opportunity for this economy to start growing again. What do we need to see? We need to see a Government—a National Government—that restores confidence so that people will invest and that revives the economy so that we can lift our aspirations as to what we can achieve in this country, because right here, right now, the export prices that we’re receiving are at historically high levels.

We’ve heard nothing but “Global headwinds, it’s Donald Trump’s fault, it’s President Xi’s fault—the world is all bad, bad, bad, and that’s why it’s slowing down.” What a load of nonsense. The terms of trade are at full throttle. New Zealand should be booming right now. Yes, there’s all sorts of uncertainty out there. But the prices we’re getting are very strong. We should be going well and we’re being held back by a Government that doesn’t know what it’s doing.

The only thing about horizontal infrastructure that we’re seeing from this Government is that they’re lying flat on their backs doing nothing. As Mr Faafoi said, “I’m on to it, bro. I’m on to it. I’ve got a plan, but actually I can hold my head high and say with all honesty that I did absolutely nothing.” And that’s what we’re going to get from this Government.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Mr Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. First, if the House will indulge me, a few words of farewell to those who have passed.

Nō reira, koutou kua ngaro atu ki te pō ki roto i te pahū nui ki runga o Whakaari, tēnei te tangi atu ki a koutou, haere, haere, haere. Ka whakahokia mai waku kōrero ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou.

[Therefore, to you who have departed to the underworld in the great eruption on Whakaari / White Island, farewell, farewell, farewell. My thoughts return to us the living, greetings to you all.]

I want to, in my contribution, speak to some of the events that have unfolded over the past few days. If I can, I would like to start down on the West Coast. In the past week, the West Coast was hammered by large rainfall, which saw significant damage to the infrastructure throughout the West Coast. It saw up to a thousand tourists trapped in Franz Josef; it saw communities isolated across the West Coast.

This isn’t anything new to the people of the West Coast, but it does continue to provide an ongoing challenge for the people of the West Coast. In that vein, I want to acknowledge their resilience—the resilience of the people of the West Coast to get on with life, to make sure that whatever the weather that impacts upon them, they have a rather optimistic attitude towards what goes on. I want to commend them also for wrapping their support around the many tourists who found themselves stuck throughout the West Coast. I want to acknowledge, also, the patience of those tourists as we looked to support them to continue their travels and explore the beauty that is our country.

In our recent package and announcement by the Prime Minister, we committed to $100,000 to go towards supporting both the West Coast and South Canterbury, who have been affected by the heavy rains.

I can confirm today that now there are only approximately 32 tourists in Franz Josef. Many of the tourists have gone on to continue their vacation here in Aotearoa New Zealand, to explore how beautiful our country is. With that beauty they acknowledge that there are many challenges, in particular when a significant weather event hits. So can I just thank the councils and all of the local people for the work that they did to ensure that the West Coast can continue to be the beautiful place that it is.

I now turn to Whakaari, to White Island, and to Whakatāne. Over the past two days, I have spent time amongst the people and I want to acknowledge a few of them in my contribution today. Can I start close to home. I would like to acknowledge the Prime Minister for her compassion and leadership in what is a truly tragic event for the community, not just in Whakatāne but internationally. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my colleagues, Tamati Coffey and also Kiritapu Allan—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Anne Tolley—for the work that they did in their community to make sure that that community felt supported, and that community knew that we were there to support them and awhi them through what was a challenging time.

I also now want to turn to my contribution to the local civil defence emergency management group, who alongside first responders, many volunteers, DHBs, health professionals, and the community at large worked particularly hard in the aftermath of the volcanic eruption. The Prime Minister has already spoken about the bravery, the selflessness, and the attributes of a community that cares about people. I was fortunate to be there firsthand to witness the people in motion, the people who hadn’t slept for nearly 48 hours, all because they were driven to make sure that those who were affected by the significant event were supported. The local government and particularly the local mayor and mayors in surrounding districts who came to support—I want to acknowledge them.

I want to acknowledge the police. I want to acknowledge the Defence Force. I want to acknowledge the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I also want to acknowledge the Immigration Service and the ACC service, who have worked hard with tour operators, with families, with community, and with people travelling from afar and those travelling nearby. They did an exceptional job and every person in this country should hold their head high in the way that our agencies, local and central, come together to support people through such a challenging time.

I apologise for the sombre note of my contribution. But I feel today and on behalf of everyone here as the Minister of Civil Defence, a big acknowledgment to all of those people involved. And I say to them all: kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui [be strong, be brave, be steadfast].

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I echo the sentiments relayed by my colleague and friend the Hon Peeni Henare in light of what has been a tragic situation back home in our region. The Eastern Bay of Plenty is a beautiful place. Whakaari itself, White Island, always casts a shadow over the water whenever you look out from the Eastern Bay beaches, and for a long time there’s been a history with the iwi around there. Te Whānau a Apanui, Te Whakatōhea, and Ngāti Awa—Ngāi Tūhoe as well—back in the day would take turns heading out the island to collect tītī or mutton bird, because that was where they went and they would all take it in turn to go out there and collect it. It’s had a long history.

There have been deaths on the island before. Once upon a time in the island’s history, it was mined for its sulphur. And actually, I think it was in 1914, there was an accident that happened there. It was an avalanche and a lot of men lost their lives. So I acknowledge that.

On Monday, I got a phone call and the phone call was basically to say, “Don’t go to Wellington. The volcano has erupted. Whakaari has erupted. I think you’d better head there.” So I jumped straight into the car. I went over to the eastern part of my electorate and I jumped out of the car. And what I realised was that I was standing at White Island Tours with a bunch of people there. I had no idea when I pulled up that actually they were people who had come straight off the boat, that had been rescued by the boats, and had been put back to safety there. They were dazed. They were confused. They didn’t know what was going on. And they had seen things that they weren’t obviously ready to share. It was a very poignant moment. But from that point on, I made sure that I was part of this to support those people that needed support.

As we’ve already heard, a lot of the people involved in this came off the cruise ships, and I want to acknowledge the role that the cruise ships have actually played in this in terms of releasing their information, working proactively with our all-of-Government approach. And it’s been brilliant to see NEMA, our National Emergency Management Agency, civil defence, the Whakatāne District Council, the New Zealand Police, Immigration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, GNS Science—everybody coming together—and Te Puni Kōkiri coming together to try and provide an all-of-Government response to something that hasn’t been seen in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

Can I also acknowledge the role that our Māori communities play in emergency disasters such as this. I take my mind back to when we had the terrorist killings earlier this year in Christchurch. As a Māori community, back in Rotorua, the word was put out, because nobody quite knew how to cope with that situation. So what we decided to do was to get everybody together at the marae. We put the call out. It wasn’t exclusive, but we just wanted to get together and feel that solidarity.

It happened in 2017 in Edgecumbe, where marae opened up their doors. Rautahi Marae opened up their doors to host the civil defence emergency centre. And it happened again yesterday when we held a hui at Te Mānuka Tūtahi Marae in Whakatāne. The iwi hosted it. We got inside and they said, “There is no media in here, but there is also no agenda in here as well. We want to be able to look after our people that are suffering through this. We want to acknowledge our workers who have colleagues that have been wrapped up in this this awful, awful tragedy.” And for a good couple of hours we sang songs, spoke, and showed solidarity. We heard from some members of the whānau who were waiting to hear back, and I understand that those families are still waiting. So my thoughts go out to them at this time.

One story that I want to recount is the story of a boy who only recently started working for White Island Tours. In fact, he was studying to be a teacher and he was well on his way to becoming a trained teacher. He only had his diploma in teaching to go, but he decided to take a bit of a side road and he decided to take up a job at White Island Tours. I spoke with his grandmother and I spoke with his girlfriend; they are, obviously, still waiting. I will forever have the words of his grandmother sitting in my head, the optimism in her voice, saying, “My boy, he’s a fighter—he’s a fighter—and I know that despite everything that would have been going on, I bet he would have found a cave and I bet he’s still probably sitting in that cave just waiting for somebody to come and find him.”

So to all of the whānau that are waiting for those answers, I acknowledge you and I acknowledge everybody that’s pulled together to make this tragedy the best situation that it can be in light of the circumstances. Kia ora tātou.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I rise to give my contribution to the debate, I too will add my sincere condolences to the families who have been caught up in this dreadful tragedy of having to live with the pain of loss and the pain of not yet quite knowing the scale of the loss. That is an incredibly difficult situation that people—in many cases, visitors to our country—have found themselves in. I acknowledge all those who are part of the comfort that the collective Aotearoa are wrapping around these people—thank you for your efforts.

Can I also make a small comment to the community of Whakatāne. I come from Papamoa, Tauranga, and I know that you will have been deeply impacted by this, because Whakaari / White Island is as precious a jewel for you as Mauao, Mount Maunganui, is for us. So when something like this happens on your special taonga, it really does cut quite deep, and I just want to acknowledge that.

The general debate is a time where you critique a Government, and I do wish to do that on behalf of the 23,000 farming families that as the National Party spokesperson for agriculture I have a great privilege to seek to represent. The Prime Minister, at the start of the year, said that this was going to be the year of delivery. Well, for those 23,000 farmers, it feels like the year of the kick in the guts.

You step through the policy framework and the policy solutions that this Government put on the table, with a particular focus on rural New Zealand, during the course of this year. First up was the capital gains tax. Now, yes, eventually that got put back in the box, but you look at what was in that document. There was a capital gains tax, a water tax, a fertiliser tax, a nutrient tax. It was a clear direction of travel; a clear view around where this Government frames and puts rural New Zealand in terms of its import, and it is way down the bottom of the list.

Following that, we then had these significant impacts and changes around how we approach climate change from an agriculture perspective. This Government trumpets the fact that they have reached agreement with the sector leaders around climate change. The way they frame it up is that success in that context is that they’ve co-designed a tax that they can tax the most emissions-efficient food producers in the world, that somehow if they reach that position in 2025, that’s a success. Well, that is a complete failure from our perspective. It is weak public policy thinking. The actual way you make a difference is to work with the sector to firstly measure it, then manage it, invest in innovation and technology to come up with tools to mitigate, and then—from our perspective—you will see the market respond as it always does, with farmers responding to the tools that they have at their disposal. But to think that the future in terms of climate change adaptation is a function of tax talks to the narrowness that this Government brings to these critical debates.

And then you move on to the fundamental issue that is confronting rural New Zealand at the moment, and this is significant land use change from pasture to forestry; huge numbers. The Government doesn’t have the data; they only have the overseas investment data. They’ve opened the door to foreign investment and closed it to every other aspect of rural New Zealand, unless you want to buy a farm to put into forests or you want to buy a forest. It is a distortion and it’s creating massive challenges in rural New Zealand.

Then you look at the water reforms. No economic analysis. No social analysis. They put the—in their mind—leading scientists in a room, and say, “Your job is simply to come up with what you think water quality looks like from a set of values, and that’s what we will take to the country.” No sense at all of the doability of it. No partnership with farmers. No actually sitting with communities who have to grapple with the trade-off of values between economic, social ambition, and environmental outcomes—none of that put was in the paper at all. It was just a David Parker blunt instrument to really make a signal that they see, from this Government’s perspective, that they believe the agriculture industries have their best days behind them. It has been a theme that has stuck with the Labour Government for 20 or 30 years. They want to diversify the economy rapidly away from agribusiness. Well, on this side of the House, we understand farmers, we understand the struggles they do every day to deliver for their family, deliver for their community, deliver for the country, and deliver for the environment. It’s about time that was celebrated as opposed to constantly condemned by that lot on the other side.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): As the Minister of Finance noted, this is a Government which has a long-term eye on the wellbeing of New Zealanders. We care about people and planet, and that’s why we want to turn around New Zealand’s rubbish record on waste.

I’d like to share with the House part of a letter I received from nine-year-old Hugh of Te Puke. It highlights why what we’re doing as a Government to tackle our waste issues is so important. Here’s what Hugh said: “I am worried about all the rubbish on our wonderful planet. I am worried that all the animals both on land and sea and the birds that fly are dying because there is a lot of plastic around where they live, and they think it is food and eat it. When they eat plastic, it can cause them to choke and die or get very sick. I do not want to see all animals die. Our family loves animals, and, except for pests, we want to enjoy animals. The beach and our ocean are not places for rubbish.” Hugh is right. There is too much rubbish and too much plastic ending up in our streams and in our oceans and going to landfill.

So we are confronting our waste problem, and with the Greens at the heart of Government we are making a difference. We are tackling an issue that past Governments, particularly the National Government, neglected for far too long. So in the two years since we’ve been in Government, we have banned microplastics, we have banned single-use plastic shopping bags, we are designing a container return scheme for beverage bottles and cans, and that will significantly increase the recovery of those beverage bottles and cans—the recovery of materials that they’re made of, like plastic and aluminium—and that will reduce litter and waste. We’ve set out the consultation and done the criteria for product stewardship schemes to deal with challenging products like e-waste, like tyres, and like batteries so that we design waste out of our system from the get go. We make the economy more efficient by recovering more materials, creating jobs in the process.

In response to China’s ban on dealing with the world’s waste, we are redesigning, with local councils, kerbside recycling, wanting to have a more consistent system, and mapping our waste and reprocessing infrastructure across New Zealand. We’ve got a major plan to expand the landfill levy so that we get revenue to establish more resource recovery centres, more reprocessing facilities in New Zealand for materials that would end up in landfill: construction and demolition materials, metals, plastics, particularly the high-value plastics. And we’ve got a major initiative to get more data on waste to better understand where material flows. And, of course, we’ve got the $40 million from the Provincial Growth Fund, which has been set aside to turn plastic and other waste into useful material for businesses and consumers.

Last weekend, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Juliet Gerrard, released a fantastic report called Rethinking Plastics in Aotearoa New Zealand. I really want to thank Professor Gerrard and her team for the inspirational examples in this report and its recommendations on how we can really rethink plastic and redesign the systems. On Sunday, the Prime Minister and I announced the Government’s plan to respond to this report. We are building into our ambitious plan on waste many of the recommendations from this report. We want to shift away from low-value plastics, hard-to-recycle plastics like polystyrene and PVC, to using instead ones like HDPE and PET, the 1 and 2 plastics. We want to phase out things like polystyrene meat trays and Styrofoam cups. We want to ensure that we can reprocess the materials that those things are currently made of. We want to phase out single-use plastic items like plastic cutlery—some of the issues around that and the fact that they end up in the oceans. We want to stimulate innovation and development in terms of soft plastics, and we’ve got a lot of work under way with local government. We want to develop a labelling scheme for plastics, and there’s already work under way with industry on that.

As Professor Gerrard says, there is no silver bullet. We need a systems change. This Government has got an ambitious plan, and we are getting on and doing it. Instead of the constant negativity that we have on that side of the House, I’d encourage them to read this report—all of the inspiring examples of businesses, communities, councils, and others getting on and thinking about how we can redesign our system, how we can get rid of unnecessary waste going to landfill, and how we can change the way we see plastics. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Before I make my remarks, I too, like others, would like to extend our thoughts and support to families who right now are grieving and in uncertainty, and also express our thanks and admiration to the first responders and to the community of the Eastern Bay of Plenty, Whakatāne, and other areas who are supporting the people surrounded by these events. Our thoughts go out to them.

The previous speaker, the Hon Eugenie Sage, talked about policies that aim for the long-term wellbeing of New Zealand. I guess that’s what every Government wants to do, but I would have to say, when I look at the beautiful region of Taranaki, that some of those policies aren’t working out and the environment is paying a price and the economy is taking a hit. I would call this a failed social, environmental, and economic experiment in terms of what this Government is doing.

When I think about the unemployment figures that came out on 30 September this year, which put Taranaki as the worst in the country, at 6 percent, I look back at one year prior to that, when it was only 4.1 percent—and prior to that, one year prior, 4.9 percent. We had come through, two years ago, a slump in commodity prices internationally around dairy produce and, of course, the price of petrochemicals. We had been coming through it, from 4.9 down to 4.1, and then bang, we’re at 6 percent. I wondered why that was, because there’s a lot of vibrancy in the region where I live. You know, construction is quite busy. There are lots of other things that people are turning their hearts and minds towards, but as I talked to businesses, they said that uncertainty has been rife in our region because of Government policy and Government decisions.

I know the Hon Megan Woods, in an opinion piece in response to my criticism of the Government’s agenda, applauded the people of Taranaki for leading the transition in this country. I’d have to say that Taranaki did not choose to do that; it was forced upon them. Many people still disagree. There was no consultation with the people of Taranaki. They received a phone call the night before—whether that was industry, civic leaders, iwi groups, community groups, or whatever. So the transition, which I think we have been undertaking in terms of energy transition for decades now, being one of the best countries in the world for renewable primary and electricity generation, came as a great surprise. We had the promise, “Don’t worry; this will be fine. This is not going to happen for decades to come.” Well, we understand, we who live in that city and in that region, that businesses stopped employing, people who were applying for citizenship and had owned homes left the country, and companies left. There is now uncertainty right across the sectors, not just in agriculture and petroleum exploration but in all the service sectors that support them.

We get criticised by the Government for being negative. Well, actually, we are just attached and connected to our constituencies. We just say what’s going on. And, by the way, the Green Party will be disappointed to know that there’s been a significant reduction—well, they might be happy at this—in the use of natural gas for electricity generation, but in the meantime we’ve had to rely on more coal, which is twice the emission level. In fact, we are now burning double the amount this year than we did last year, and I would say that is a failed environmental experiment. Not only have this Government’s policies created higher levels of unemployment and uncertainty, fewer people getting jobs, more young people not knowing whether their future exists in Taranaki or not, but now we actually have more environmental issues to face as well. Because of that, we see the wholesale price of electricity increase by 50 percent over the last 15 months because it actually has a reliance—natural gas underpins this. So we see, actually, a failed economic experiment as well, and it’s all gone backwards.

I just wish this Government had listened to people, but they don’t and they box on and they push ahead. They think they are right—

Hon Maggie Barry: Arrogant.

JONATHAN YOUNG: They are arrogant, and, unfortunately, arrogance only breeds ignorance—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai, kei te tū au ināianei i tēnei wā tino taumaha mō a mātou ngā iwi o te waka o Mātaatua, mai i te tino, te, i tēnei wā, he tino taumaha te āhua i runga i a mātou.

Ā, ka huri aku whakaaro ki ngā tāngata kua wehe atu. Kua huri aku whakaaro ki te motu o Whakaari, ki ngā iwi o Ngāti Awa, mai i te maunga tapu o Pūtauaki, mai i te awa o Te Rangitāiki, mō ngā tāngata kei reira, mō ngā tāngata kua mate i tēnei wiki, i ēnei rā, ā, mō ngā tāngata kei reira e tū ana, ngā tāngata ora. Ka huri aku whakaaro ki a rātou ngā tino pukukaimahi e tū ana ki te awhia i a rātou.

[Greetings Mr Speaker, I am standing now at this troubled time for us, the tribes of the Mātaatua canoe, because at this time there is a real heaviness upon us.

And my thoughts turn to the people who have passed. My thoughts go to Whakaari / White Island, to the tribes of Ngāti Awa, from the sacred mountain of Pūtauaki and the Rangitāiki River, for the people there, for the people who have died this week, in these days, and, for the people who are standing there, the living. My thoughts turn to those who are working so hard and standing up to help them.]

Whilst I’m here ā-tinana, in person, my thoughts, my heart, and my mind are all at home with the people in Whakatāne. The events that occurred on Monday for our community—we are a small community in Whakatāne. As the mayor described, we’re big enough to kind of get things done, but we’re small enough to know everybody. Right now, my thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, but they’re also with every single person on that Monday. We all know many, many of those who, literally, dropped their tools—whether they be builders, teachers, lawyers. It didn’t matter who people were; when they got that siren and that alarm went, they dropped tools and they ran to those organisations that many of our community are a part of—that they are volunteers of—whether that be the fire services, whether that be the coastguard, St John. The response from those first responders on that day, just a couple of days ago now, I cannot but take my hat off and acknowledge every single person and those families that supported those individuals to go out and participate in the tragic events that occurred in our home town on Monday. I cannot but say thank you—thank you once, twice, and thrice—and our community is so proud of the way that those individuals responded.

I’ve just gotten off the phone, literally only a few minutes ago, to one of the gentlemen who of his own volition—he’s a pilot for one of our local carriers. Of his own volition and the volition of him and his friends—they know Whakaari well. They, like everybody, got the news that she was blowing. They and all their mates jumped into their helicopters and they rushed over to that island and they did what they did, what only heroes can do, which those locals will do and have done. Basically, they lifted and carried and pulled and risked their own lives to ensure that the lives of many others were saved that day, and we as a community know that many lives were saved because of their heroic actions.

In particular, I want to acknowledge that those first responders—particularly some of these guys that just jumped into the helicopters and went over—they were mates with a lot of the tourist guides and the operators that were in a spot of bother, who were also doing all they could do to save lives that day. In particular, I’m thinking of Mark, who was really good mates with another guy called Mark. Mark saw his mate Mark and saw that he wasn’t in a good way. He pulled him into a better place so that he might have a better chance of survival. Now, we don’t know where Mark Inman is at the moment, but we do know that his mate Mark did all he could to put him in the best chance of survival. But my thoughts right now are with Hayden and with all of his family and his brother, Mark. They are an incredibly strong local family, and I know that our whole town is grieving for them, as we are for Tīpene and the boys up the coast.

The other component to this tragedy has been the number of people that have been affected from different places, from other countries—a lot from Australia, Great Britain, Canada, Malaysia, and China. I want to put on record just our gratitude to the operators of Royal Caribbean International, from that ship, for the work that they have done to work alongside us to ensure that those victims from that day were looked after. So I just wanted to say thank you to our town for everything they did for the Whakaari recovery.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I want to talk about the handling of the Lumsden Maternity Centre, which has been an unsafe, life-threatening, unethical, and failed social experiment on Southland mums and babies, which this Government is not prepared to own or fix. There has simply been no accountability, no solution for the mums and babies of Southland. I just want to outline the series of events, and this time line demonstrates the level of incompetence by those who are supposed to be responsible for delivering safe healthcare across Southland.

In early March 2018, the Lumsden Maternity Centre directors were informed about the closure of their much loved maternity centre. Now, this maternity centre covers an area the same size as Tasman or 1.25 times larger than the size of Taranaki. The closure of this maternity unit puts lives at risk. You only need to look across the Ditch at Queensland when they closed 40 rural maternity unit seven years ago. The Minister this year has reopened them because the infant death rate has increased from six per 1,000 infants to 23 per 1,000. That’s because mothers and babies are dying, especially babies, while trying to get to a maternity birthing unit.

In mid-April this year, the maternity centre was closed. Now, the much promised maternity hubs were supposed to have critical lifesaving equipment. They simply didn’t. In late May, I wrote to the Minister of Health outlining my grave concerns, saying the community was being left in limbo, that should a baby be born on the side of the road or even the unimaginable happen, it would be blood on the Government’s hands. That’s because basic infrastructure, basic lifesaving equipment was missing. Only a few weeks later, what do you know, a baby was born on the side of the road and the response from the Government the following week: “We are satisfied with the level of maternity services in Southland and mothers need to plan their births better.” Well, the so-called Wellbeing Government is satisfied that mums in Southland are giving birth in degrading, unsafe, life-threatening circumstances.

There have been several other births since then. One of those was a mother travelling from Queenstown to Invercargill. Her midwife had to break into Lumsden as the district health board hadn’t given her instructions on how to get in there. Another mother was forced to be driven at 120 to 130 kph to the closest primary birthing unit because basic drugs were not available. A father had to break the law for the pure survival of his unborn child and the mother of the child’s life. It was minus two degrees, and when they got to the primary birthing centre, that mother was on all fours in the back seat.

Not only has this Government disregarded the safety of rural mothers and babies, I just want to talk about the social experiment and especially the unethical behaviour conducting this social experiment. The Government’s own list MP Liz Craig, two days after the closure emailed one of her constituent’s concerns that “Despite the DHB announcing that the Lumsden child and maternal hub is operational, unfortunately it’s not.” It goes on to say, “The medical centre have phoned me and told me that the hub does not exist here yet. Nothing has been signed. There’s no access arrangements for any of the midwives. And how are they supposed to access the hub when there is an emergency?”

Now, what’s really interesting is that during my petition to the Health Committee to reinstate services, the DHB fronted up and said they knew nothing about these concerns. According to them, it was all operational. Now, if it was operational, why is the Government’s own list MP emailing in these concerns? The Health Minister doesn’t even listen to his own list MP’s concerns. What on earth is the point of him not even listening to that? Now what’s even worse—the select committee, we got to my petition. There were eight people on the select committee: four National, three Labour, one New Zealand First. Now all National MPs voted for an independent investigation. What did the Government MPs do, especially two list MPs from down that way—Liz Craig and Mark Patterson? They voted against it. Now, if they had the interests of the people at heart, they would have voted for an independent investigation and for services at Lumsden to be reinstated. Now, they voted against that. What on earth is the point of being here when you vote against a petition that’s going to hold a DHB to account and you’re basically voting against your own people?

National backs rural New Zealand. That’s why we’ve announced if we get back into Government next year, if re-elected, we will reinstate full services at Lumsden Maternity Centre because we’re not going to put the lives of rural Southland mothers at risk for the sake of a few hundred thousand dollars. We will reinstate Lumsden Maternity Centre because we value the lives and put the safety of rural mothers and babies at top of mind.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Anyone who was watching Q+A on Monday night would have been quite astonished. In fact, you would have had quite a giggle. I refer to the interview between Paul Goldsmith and Jack Tame. And it was really enlightening because what did we see? Well, Jack Tame, quite cleverly actually, opened the conversation by telling the public that the Prime Minister had put a line in the sand and that Auckland port was going to move—Ports of Auckland was going to move. And he turned the question straight back to Mr Goldsmith and said, basically, “But where does the Opposition stand, Paul Goldsmith? Can you do the same?” An interesting reply: “Well, I don’t think we’re in a position to say that right now. We’re open to discussion. If you’re looking ahead, probably a good chance. If you looked out far enough ahead, maybe the port will shift, but there’s a big question and needs an answer.”

Tame comes in again, “Why aren’t we in a position to answer yet?” This is Paul Goldsmith: “Well we haven’t seen the business case. It’s not a small decision.” He said, “It’s not a small decision.” He’s actually quite correct. It’s not a small decision. It takes people with courage to make big decisions. But he goes on. Jack Tame comes in again: “So was John Key wrong?” The answer is “He’s a very smart character, but even John Key is not infallible.” “Then is Nikki Kaye wrong?”—“Oh.” “Then is Judith Collins wrong?”

You say, what we had was the man who acts like the little fox terrier worrying the sheep in the paddock, running around here, attacking my colleague Shane Jones, and asking all these really big questions. But he’s really not so much of an Opposition spokesman; he’s more like a worry-wart. He’s not capable of making the big decisions. And he doesn’t seem to understand that for a Government to lead, they have to be bold. They have to be courageous. They have to have vision. A Government needs to look forward. It can’t sit there and say, “Oh, even though my past leader thought it was a good idea, it’s too big a decision.” You’ve got to have that courage.

And what are we seeing from this Government? Well, we’re actually seeing that adventure. We’re actually seeing something that I thought the National Party would be chock-a-block full of: it’s entrepreneurialism, an ability to look ahead and take some risks in order to deliver to the New Zealanders of the future. And this is a Government that actually understands something. It understands you have to be prosperous to meet those infrastructural needs. It understands one has to earn money. This Government understands that the three-legged stool upon which the prosperity of this nation sits is foreign policy, trade, and defence.

And what has this Government done? Well, it’s invested massively: $740-odd million in new money pumped into foreign affairs. And look at the results. We have the most proactive Minister of Foreign Affairs this country’s ever seen and the most diligent Minister for Trade and Export Growth working in tandem. And I am fortunate enough as the Minister of Defence to work in parallel with them advancing defence diplomacy, underpinning foreign policy, and actually underpinning trade adventurism and trade policy. And what are the results? Well, we’ve already surpassed the last Government’s nine years with enhanced trade agreements and we’ve got more coming. Watch this space.

And how do I justify all those statements? Well, look at what we have achieved. Take defence—record defence expenditure in terms of operational funding and capital expenditure: P-8s, $2.3 billion. I’ve heard some people say, “How does that help New Zealand?” Well, apart from the foreign policy stuff and how that enhances our trade engagements, actually when one looks at the $2.34 billion worth of investment in P-8s, half of that is being invested back into the economy. The Manawatū economy will be better off for $400 million pumped back into its economy. Actually, it’s about $1.2 billion is going to be invested in New Zealand, but Manawatū is going to benefit directly: 300 extra labourers; extra people working on site; a $65 million contract given out already to Fulton Hogan; a $200 million contract coming down the line to build all the infrastructure, the hangars, the facilities, everything that goes with it. And I haven’t even talked about the $103 million for Manawanui and the NH90s and the frigate systems upgrade and the protected mobility and Oryx. I’m yet to talk about the Hercs.

This Government is going to go down in history, despite Mr Goldsmith’s worry-wart behaviour, as having invested massively in the future of New Zealand through massive infrastructure and benefits, through massive defence expenditure and budgets. And I think that is the sort of entrepreneurialism, that’s the sort of leadership, that’s the sort of vision that will carry this country forward as opposed to what we witnessed over the last nine years.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): For those of us that live in the Bay of Plenty and those of us that live by the sea, Whakaari is a part of who we are. When you get up in the morning, you look out the window, you have a look to see how much smoke’s coming from it. It is just a part of our lives and it changes every day. It is an active volcano and she never lets you forget that. And there’s no doubt that over the last few days in the Bay of Plenty, we’ve come to realise how much of our being is related to that volcano. So when she let us know with no doubt on Monday afternoon that she was active, it took us all by surprise and shocked us at the violence of it because she talks to us all the time.

But this was different, and so I want to take this opportunity today to acknowledge some outstanding people in the community who made extraordinary efforts at the risk of their own lives: a couple of helicopter pilots who knew that they were taking themselves into an area that was full of fumes, full of ash, and that their lives would be at risk, but they went in anyway to make sure that they got as many people off that were they were able to do so. Skippers of a couple of the boats from White Island Tours and the passengers that were on one of those, who had already left and were safe, made the decision to go back in order to get people off. A helicopter pilot who was on the island said to his passengers, “We’re going to jump in the sea. Follow me.” and jumped in the sea. Only two of his passengers did that, and, of course, the blast went over the top of their heads. The other two who were perhaps slower or were questioning it didn’t, and, of course, suffered the consequences. So those are extraordinary heroes and should be recognised as such.

But there were many, many more in the community that deserve to be acknowledged as heroes. There were the staff of White Island Tours themselves who helped those survivors off the boats, had to deal with just horrific injuries to people, and dealt with them with kindness and concern and care, despite knowing that they had lost some of their own. The survivors on the boats who agreed to go back—but also then we’re hearing stories of how they helped some of those that were in terrible, terrible circumstances while they were being taken back to shore.

The St Johns Ambulance Service people who gathered from all around the Bay of Plenty and all around the area, and, of course, the Whakatāne Hospital staff. It has been described as a war zone—they are just a provincial hospital, they do not have the specialists there that may well be used to seeing some of these injuries. The staff, again, dealt with those people with care and kindness and aroha—is the best way to describe it—and did an extraordinary job. The Whakatāne District Council and the staff there—unfortunately, they are so used to dealing with emergencies, they swung into action. In fact, just a week ago they lodged, with our civil defence, a plan as to what to do if there had been a volcanic eruption, and so they were able to swing straight into action. They’re a well-oiled team, having honed their skills through several disasters over the last decade. Lastly, but by no means least, we must acknowledge Ngāti Awa. What an amazing iwi they are. They just opened their arms, opened their marae, and they encircled visitors, locals, and families with that love and concern and service that only an iwi like that can bring. They deserve to be acknowledged for that.

Mr Speaker, sitting in the seat there today—I know that the Speaker can’t be brought into the debate, but so many of my colleagues across the House have expressed their concern for the three local MPs and for the people of the Bay of Plenty that have suffered—losing faith, a little bit, in that fantastic Whakaari and suffering through the tragedy—and I thank them all for that. Kia ora tātou.

SPEAKER: We’d normally have one more speech now but those who have indicated that they were going to speak have all spoken, and, therefore, I propose to conclude the general debate now. I also want to acknowledge and place on record my thanks for the four members who have been in the area and have made a contribution to this debate today, both for what they have done up there—which has been absolutely fantastic, it’s been reported back to me—and for their contributions to letting members know privately on things which would not be appropriate to share, and their contributions to the House today. Thank you all.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Venture Capital Fund Bill

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill

Third Readings

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): I move, That the Venture Capital Fund Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Can I also pass on my thanks, as Mr Speaker has already, to the prior speakers, and also give my best regards to those who are adversely affected.

This bill puts in place a key element of the Wellbeing Budget economic package. I’ve said earlier in the debate on this bill that I think the timing of this is very important. The world is in the midst of this technological revolution which is born of this confluence of affordable computing power, mobile positioning systems, sensors, robotics, big data and the internet of things, artificial intelligence, and, I’d add to that, a better understanding of genetics.

We know that the enormity of these changes is such that Governments around the world, including in New Zealand, are having to deal with the challenges that this throws up. We do that in New Zealand under the banner of the future of work. The fact that we’ve got to have a separate programme for that in Government shows the enormity of the change on the way. I think the estimate from McKinsey is that in the next 20 to 30 years about 60 percent of the jobs in New Zealand could theoretically be automated and that, in reality, around 30 percent will be. The enormity of that change, I think, measures the size of the opportunity, because the flipside of the challenge is the enormous business opportunity that arises from these opportunities to improve the efficiency of existing methods of production or the opportunities to commercialise new products and services that are born of this revolution. I think it’s the duty of every Government in the world to do their utmost to get their share of the upside in the world, and in New Zealand the Government thinks that we should be doing that so that we can harness those opportunities and obtain these new high-value jobs and the export value that this creates.

We know that too many of our high-growth, early-stage companies struggle to access capital. Some of them are well funded, but the conversion rate of our early-stage ventures to high-growth companies is lower than international countries that we compare ourselves to. We think this is in no small part caused by a shortage of available capital in series A and B capital rounds. Earlier in the growth of these new tech companies, they had good support from the seed capital part of the market. In part, that’s been brought about by the Seed Co-investment Fund, which is another fund run by the Venture Investment Fund directors—that in itself has been supported by Government intervention.

I think we should reflect on how well we’re doing as a country in this area of the economy. If you go back 20 years, we didn’t have this sort of economy to any great extent. Of course, we had Gallagher group and other technology companies like Fisher & Paykel Healthcare—they had already started their journey—but this ecosystem was a lot smaller.

The prior Labour Government, under Helen Clark, held the knowledge wave conference, and there was general agreement that we needed to lift the diversity and value of what it is that we were offering to the rest of the world, and they identified the need for some interventions. They chose three sectors, in particular: creative sectors, biotechnology, and information and communication technology—ICT. They chose the right three sectors. The subsequent National Government morphed the biotech more towards food and beverage, and I think that was a wise thing to do. As a consequence, these technology exports are now one of our highest growing export centres—third after primary products and tourism. We can do even better if we get this ecosystem working better at the series A and series B capital funds.

Three hundred million dollars is going into the fund over time. This will be leveraged by investments from the private sector so that the amount that is going into these early stage ventures will be more than $300 million. We’re trying to build the capability in the sector at the same time as we better capitalise the companies that are going to have investments made in them. We think that we are going to help develop the domestic and international networks that we need, and that alongside the R & D tax credit, the ring-fencing of losses, and extending the brightline test this is another part of the Government’s economic package that really is helping weight investment towards the productive sectors in a way that we think is going to lift economic performance and productivity more broadly across the economy. It does that in part because these companies also have the effect of enabling diffusion of technology more broadly across the economy in a way that lifts productivity.

One of the complaints I’ve heard from the Opposition is the relative performance of our export sector compared with domestic consumption. They point that out as if it is a bad thing; actually, I think it’s a good thing. We’ve had an economy that for too long has been weighted upon consumption, which has had its underpinnings in high rates of immigration, in gendered population growth, and in a house property price bubble that has made people feel wealthy, and, therefore, they have consumed their equity in their houses. It does take a while to rebalance the economy towards an export-led recovery, but we’re actually doing that. Exports as a percentage of GDP are on the way up and we are seeing a balance away from an excessive reliance on speculative investment in the housing sector.

Chris Bishop: Really?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, we are; the stats show that most clearly.

Now, in respect of the framework for governance here, we have the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation helping set up the structures which lead to the choice of private sector venture capitalists who run the funds that invest the money in the companies that we want to grow. The Venture Investment Fund administers that on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Guardians, so I think we’re using the capability that we’ve got in the sector to best effect.

There is a policy statement that can be changed from time to time and that’s intended to get the balance right between international involvement and local providers. We actually need both, but we don’t want it to become completely dominated by overseas participants, because we are wanting to build the New Zealand ecosystem, as well.

The second to last point I would make would be to respond to a complaint that was made by the National Party during the second reading, which was complaining that this money’s coming via money that would otherwise have gone to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund for them to invest directly. I would point out the hollowness of that criticism, given that in their nine years of Government, they made no contributions to the Superannuation Fund. They actually gathered $5 billion in tax from the Superannuation Fund, but made no contribution to it. We, of course, are making contributions of around $2 billion per annum, and we are building the Superannuation Fund at the same time as we think it’s appropriate to divert some of the money into this fund. We think, as a consequence, that the productivity of New Zealand will grow and that we will have higher export earnings, higher wages, and interesting jobs for people to go to. This is one way we can futureproof our economy in respect of these changes that are coming from those technologies that I mentioned at the start.

Lastly, can I thank Government officials for the work that they have put into this. Can I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It’s good that we’ve got almost universal support for this bill in the House. Can I thank the many participants from the private sector, who have already—even before we announced this policy—given us advice as to how we might best structure this, and I think we’ve struck on an outcome which will prove to be a wise investment for the country. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking in the third reading of the Venture Capital Fund Bill. As we’ve flagged before, National will be supporting this bill, although there are elements of it that we still do have concerns about. But we do need a bill like this because we need a venture capital industry that is more sustainable. When you look at the context of New Zealand, we’ve got an economy that is starting to slip backwards quite rapidly, with a decline in GDP by 1 percent, or roughly $3 billion a year of lost opportunity; we’ve got high levels of people now on the dole—over 22,000—and we have seen a decline in the number of new jobs being created, from a high under National of 10,000 per month, which is now down nearer to about 3,000 per month, and that’s just lost opportunity for people to be involved, to be gainfully employed, and to be earning more money. Also, we’re now seeing two years of a flat economy, largely because the investment community and the mums and dads that own the hundreds of thousands of small businesses around New Zealand are worried about the situation. They’re worried about the New Zealand situation, where things are just not going ahead.

We hear all these excuses—and, again, we’ve just heard Minister David Parker talking about international trade winds—which really, on the face of it, don’t stack up, because exports are at a record high because of incredible terms of trade. So that’s not the situation. The situation why we’ve got declining GDP and declining incomes for New Zealanders is because of what’s going on here with Government policy.

But this Venture Capital Fund is a way of dealing with what people term the valley of death in investment circles. You have the seed capital, which is the very first stage; then you have the venture capital; and then you have private equity, before you move on to traditional banking arrangements which help fund and turbocharge our businesses. So this is a way of dealing with that valley of death—that second stage—where people, who are often young people, invest their time and a lot of their money, and often their family’s money, to try and start up these new businesses that in the end, ultimately, sometimes achieve great things.

There have been many examples in New Zealand, but they’re not always that numerous. But the ones we have seen have been fantastic: Rocket Lab, LanzaTech, and, if we go back in time, a whole raft of ones which have come out of a huge amount of work and have come out of people taking risk. They’ve been prepared to invest their time, to not take full salaries, to borrow money from friends and family, and for the friends and family to back them, even though they know there’s often little chance that they’re going to be successful.

So this bill creates an opportunity to amass $300 million, with $240 million coming from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and $60 million from the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund, and that is an element of trying to make the venture capital industry more sustainable. So that is the first issue. The first issue is that the Government can put up money, but the most important thing is that we end up with a more sustainable industry, and that means that we have the New Zealand venture capital scene being prepared to continue to invest, alongside this fund, and to make sure that it achieves a recycling over time and that people find the confidence to do that.

One of the interesting things is that the terms of this Venture Capital Fund, in terms of the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation—who will be overseeing it—could, theoretically, be achieved by using just the international players that would be involved in it, and that, in itself, would be highly disappointing. A number of the submitters, including Lance Wiggins and a number of other people highly involved in venture capital firms in the sector in New Zealand, suggested there needed to be much more clarity around the purpose of this Venture Capital Fund, and that is an ongoing issue that we are concerned about. But the ultimate aim must be to ensure a more sustainable venture capital industry.

The other thing that’s really intriguing—and I’ve noted this before—is that I’ve never found an example, and I’ve never even heard of an example, where you set up a fund like this, with $300 million, and you do not set a required rate of return or a financial target to achieve, because what that means is that you can invest in these businesses and you’re not worried about what sort of level of profitability you achieve, and, ultimately, whether, in fact, you get your money back. That is all part of that recycling I talked about, and it is incredibly unusual for a fund to be set up on these grounds, with no targeted return. That I find very perturbing, when you’re talking about $300 million that we’re spending of taxpayers’ money on this particular part of the sector, which is a highly risky part of the investment cycle. I think this is an oversight and it shows a lack of commerciality of the Ministers overseeing this particular proposal.

The other one is that there’s no clarity around the nature of investments, so what type of investments should the fund be investing in? That is a really important thing, particularly where you’re trying to grow New Zealand’s economic activity and trying to grow a minnow into a giant through the venture capital process. I think that lack of clarity is a worrying thing, as well.

The other aspect that’s come to light is that this particular fund will be required to pay tax, yet, at the same time, the Provincial Growth Fund run by the Hon Shane Jones and the new green fund that the Greens were very keen to have set up both have tax-exempt entities. So I’m not quite sure of the justification why this one should be paying tax, particularly when you’ve got no financial objectives for it. It’s incongruous and inconsistent.

These are some of the issues that we’re worried about. Then, more recently, we’ve had some extensions of what the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, who are going to be managing this fund, are going to have to meet in terms of overall objectives, and they are set out in clauses 32 and 56, which mean that the Minister can now interpose himself—at the moment—in terms of what the guardians report about the Venture Capital Fund in their annual reporting cycle and,

More importantly, they require the guardians to have regard for the wider objectives of the Government, particularly around taking into account all the aspects of government and making it a more inclusive Government. I would say to you that this is blurring of the objectives of what otherwise should be a very clear objective—namely, to invest in New Zealand businesses, to help and promote them, to make sure we get at least our money back and, hopefully, make a return on it so that we can create a successful venture capital industry in New Zealand. It should be crystal clear, yet under this legislation and under this Minister, it is very, very blurred, and, I think, possibly the words the Minister just spoke—about being sure this is going to be a very successful entity—may in time come back to haunt the Minister.

With all those issues that we’ve raised, none the less we will be supporting it. There are other aspects we have raised about it, but in the main I hope we will have the opportunity to clarify its objectives in time, when, hopefully, we come back into Government, because this does need some clarification. But in terms of the general intent of it, we do support that and I commend it to the House.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well, he is often verbose, but I still like him—Andrew Bayly, the member who was just speaking across the House. I think that the 10 minutes it took him to say they agree with what this side of the House is doing, and that they are going to support the bill, is probably far too long to say exactly that. So in light of the remarks that have been said, it is a privilege to support and commend the bill to the House.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): As my colleague Andrew Bayly said, we will support the legislation, principally because there is a need for more venture capital in New Zealand—that’s accepted. But what drove me to be very supportive of the legislation is that I went through Budget 2019, and you go through the Budget and this is the only piece of legislation, the only idea the Government came up with, that could be described as business-friendly.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Rubbish.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Somebody interrupted, “Rubbish.” Well, I’ll let that member stand to their feet and take the next call and give me the second business-friendly announcement that was in the Budget, because that member won’t be able to find it.

What we have got is a Government that for two years has been completely anti-business to the extent that we’ve now got business confidence as low as we have ever seen it in this country. I’ve been saying to the Government, on many occasions when I have the privilege of speaking in this House, that that lack of business confidence will lead to lower growth for the economy. Various economic “experts”—and I say “experts” with inverted commas—on the other side of the House said that was rubbish, and yet we’ve got proof out today with the latest Treasury forecasts. They were optimistically forecasting GDP growth at 3 percent. They’ve now revised that to 2.2 percent, and I still suggest to Treasury that they are probably over optimistic at 2.2 percent.

What that means is we’ve now got a Government that had been forecasting a substantial Budget surplus now having to acknowledge Treasury’s forecast of the economy going backwards to the extent that we now face a Budget deficit of $1 billion for the year ending June 2020.

Hon Amy Adams: Shocking.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: We’re now in the vicinity of a $1 billion Budget deficit. Well, my colleague, my friend, Amy Adams said that’s shocking, but we shouldn’t be surprised because this is just par for the course for Labour Governments. They inherit an economy that is well-established, well set up—and they were forecasting, as they took over from National after the election of 2017, a sea of Budget surpluses. The economy was in good shape. And what they’ve done is, sadly but almost immediately, in two years, take it from surplus to deficits because of wasteful expenditure.

So when we look through the Budget and we find the Venture Capital Fund being announced—$300 million to give some boost to New Zealand businesses—I’m supportive of that. But I do want to point out that looking at the $300 million figure, even that was a case of figures by mirrors. There is no new money for this bill. What they’re doing is they’re directing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to make available $240 million, and they’re directing the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund to make available $60 million. Those two figures add up to the amount being available for the venture capital bill of $300. So, again, it is mirrors and trickery by the Minister of Finance. There is no new money at all, and you wouldn’t expect it from a Government that is so anti-business, so prepared to let business confidence slide to the level that it has recently to the announcement today from Treasury, forcing Mr Grant Robertson to come up with a raft of glowing announcements of $12 billion of infrastructure, and I guarantee we won’t see any of them ready for starting construction before election 2020.

So what we’ve got is a Government full of rhetoric. It’s been full of rhetoric from day one but it fails to deliver. This piece of legislation will be of benefit to business, but it shouldn’t be confused—it shouldn’t be sold as $300 million of a new initiative. It is simply the reclassification of two other appropriations. But at least, finally—at least, finally—we have a Budget announcement in the last Budget that showed some friendliness to business, and business will grab, I hope, the opportunity, although if I was a businessperson with an entrepreneurial idea, the first thing I’d be thinking about is, “What else will the Government come up with that’s completely anti-business?”—and therefore would I have the confidence even to apply to the Venture Capital Fund? Would people have the confidence to apply to the fund, to take their entrepreneurial idea out of that valley of death scenario that most entrepreneurs find, and take it into a situation where, with the borrowing of extra money, they can mature their entrepreneurial idea and take it to a sustainable business that may or may not be so successful that it even stays in New Zealand or goes elsewhere.

So while National does support the Venture Capital Fund Bill, it’s not without reservation. We support it because at last we’ve seen the Government come up with something that shows it understands a little bit of business. But in the raft of other anti-business pieces of legislation that have been advanced from the start of this Government’s tenure, it is not surprising that business confidence is as low as it’s ever been. It’s not surprising that today Treasury has revised its growth figures and revised the Budget outlook, and I think it’s a very sad day where within two years of a Labour Government we’re seeing their old habits come to the fore—a Government now forecasting deficits into the future.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support enthusiastically this Venture Capital Fund Bill, as we seek to broaden the New Zealand economy and transform it and address some of the long-term challenges. And, of course, one of those challenges has been productivity. We simply have been lagging in the comparators on productivity. One only has to look out—like I do—my office window on to the wharves and see those unprocessed logs sitting out there, which is a completely lost opportunity.

We know that one of the issues that we’re dealing with is a historical long-term underinvestment in R & D, and we know the correlation between R & D spending as a percentage of GDP and actual wealth, and we are, as a Government, aiming to get that up to 2 percent, up from less than 1.5 now. We know that countries like Denmark, that we might like to compare ourselves with, are up around 4. So we have a ways to go.

To the member opposite who just resumed his seat, David Carter, I say I know he’s a retiring member—that’s coming up—and it seems to me that he must have checked out early because he’s missed a plethora of announcements that the Government has made to address some of these long-term challenges. There is $1.25 billion in R & D tax credits; the massive infrastructure boost that was announced today by Minister Robertson; that $12 billion above what was already in the pipeline. The Provincial Growth Fund, that $3 billion behemoth that’s investing in our provinces, up from—I think the previous Government’s budget was $11 million a year for that sort of initiative; a massive ramping up, a hundredfold ramping up of investments into our provinces. The extension of the brightline test to take the weighting away from property speculation. The restarting of payments into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which actually gives us the capacity to bring this bill forward today and which was shamefully stopped. The opportunity cost to the New Zealand public of doing that was circa $20 billion, I understand. And, of course, we’ve got a significant ramping up of the trade deals under Minister Parker and Foreign Minister Peters.

We’ve got the EU trade deal under way, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership deal progressing, we’ve got a significant upgrade to the China trade deal just announced, we’ve got pending deals with the UK when it’s able to get into negotiations with us, and, of course, at a political level, we’ve got an agreement with the US to start proceedings around a trade deal with the world’s biggest economy. So there is an enormous amount that this Government has done to rebalance the New Zealand economy and put it on a more sustainable footing.

In terms of this Venture Capital Fund, it is designed to fill a gap. There is a gap. There does seem to be money available for start-ups, and that ecosystem has developed, but there is a gap between businesses that get to that sort of $2 million to $20 million turnover. This bill does seek to target specifically those businesses. There does seem to be some market failure there. There’s been a complete dearth of listings on the NZX of late—I think only two for this calendar year—so the Government is putting its shoulder to the wheel there. What is happening is instead of developing in New Zealand and turning into significant businesses that are in the billions of dollars, we are selling these opportunities off to overseas companies at an early stage because of this lack of capital. Of course, we’ve seen banks tightening their criteria, particularly into the farming sector, and I think that’s probably across the economy as they seek to pull back their exposure a little bit.

So this Venture Capital Fund does seek to plug those gaps. It will leverage private sector equity coming in. It will lead to a more balanced New Zealand economy which has the ability to reach the potential that we all know that it has. So New Zealand First are very enthusiastic supporters of this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to take a brief call in this third reading on the Venture Capital Fund Bill. It’s been a little while since I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but I was a member of that committee at the early stages of the bill, and, as my colleague the Rt Hon David Carter said in his excellent contribution, we are going to support this legislation because we do see it as something that will assist business in this country.

Unlike most of the members opposite, National understands that any Government can spend; actually, what marks a good Government from an average Government is a Government that understands how hard the businesses and the people of New Zealand have to work to earn that money. It seems very clear to us that we now have a Government that has completely dropped the ball on thinking about how it can best support business to actually earn the money, create the jobs, and pay the taxes that give Governments the ability to make any investments. You can talk all you like about investing in infrastructure or housing or health or education, and all of the other things that are necessary; if the money isn’t being earned, there is nothing to spend.

National will support the bill because we do see it as the only tangible business-supporting initiative to come out of the Budget, and for that reason alone it is worth supporting. However, and again, as my colleagues have said, it shouldn’t be mistaken for what I have heard it portrayed as by this Government. It shouldn’t be mistaken as an investment into business, because there is no new money going in. The Government has taken money from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, taken money that has been contributed to pay for future superannuation and carved a bit of that off to put into business so they can pretend that they have invested in business. Now, the money to business is real, but it isn’t new. It has been taken from Peter to pay Paul. So let’s not kid ourselves that this is the Government actually choosing to invest any of the surpluses they were left in supporting business.

It also shouldn’t be taken as being a panacea for what is a deeply, deeply weak sentiment of business confidence in this country and a rapidly slowing private sector economy. Now, we’re seeing already from this Government very clear signs and the ghost of Michael Cullen coming back to haunt us once more. Well, when the private sector is going backward at the rate of knots, the Government borrows and spends to create activity to try and make it look as if the economy is good. You cannot build a future on Government spending. The only sustainable economic growth is economic growth that comes from the private sector. Borrowing and spending is a band-aid on a system that is slowing very fast. So that’s what they’re doing, and we should not pretend that this Venture Capital Fund Bill is going to reverse that deeply worrying trend that has been gripping this country’s economy for the last 18 months to two years.

In fact, just last night, members of the National caucus met with a major New Zealand business, a significant employer, who told us that while they have been growing steadily in New Zealand for most of the last decade, “the last”—and I quote them—“18 months have been the hardest they have experienced for many, many years.”, worse than the global financial crisis, worse than the periods through the earthquakes and other hard financial times we’ve had. The last 18 months under this Government have been the worst they have had, and this is a business that employs thousands and thousands of workers.

So we’ll support the bill because it is a step in the right direction, but this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a solution to the crisis of business confidence, the failure of the private sector economy, that this Government is causing in this country.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak to this Venture Capital Fund Bill. As many have spoken about their experiences pertaining to the content and intention of this legislation in their contributions so far, I feel it probably only makes sense for me to refer to, as many of the former National Party speakers actually have, the former National Government. My father was moving house recently, and we found a pile of letters and notes and other paraphernalia that I had had in my room as a child. One of those things that I found in that cabinet was a letter that I wrote to the Rt Hon John Key as a 13-year-old. I wrote a letter to Sir John Key asking for him to invest in my idea for a car that ran on magnets. There wasn’t a whole lot more thinking behind it, but at that point in time what I was concerned about was that we were moving towards a clean, green economy. So if there’s a more earnest Green Party opening to a speech, I don’t know where you can find one.

We’ve had the Rt Hon David Carter referring to where we’re going to find some sense of whether this Government is business-friendly or not, and I really want to unpack that statement, because what on earth does that actually mean? We bandy around words like that in this place all the time, and it is so disconnected from the reality of the so-called everyday New Zealanders that the Opposition likes to speak about so frequently. Talking about being business-friendly, I genuinely believe, if you look to the core root of it, puts the cart before the horse. Surely, the point of Government, the point of the State, the point of a House of Representatives, is to be people- and society-friendly. Business is the means to help achieve that, but increasing the size of business is not an end unto itself.

That’s why I think it’s really important that we note, in responding to the contributions from members of the National Party, that such thinking leads to an absolute perversity in ideology, because growth and prosperity are two separate things, as we all know.

I actually, most recently, sat on a panel with the Hon Paul Goldsmith at the University of Auckland where we were talking about how GDP is not the sole measure of wellbeing for a society. He himself and the National Party say that they believe that there need to be broader measures of the economy and how well it is doing. That is why we need to recognise that simply talking about growing the pie, simply talking about growing the economy, can lead to perversities such as not recognising that GDP, that growth, unto itself doesn’t recognise or tell the story of the distribution of wealth, nor the quality of transactions that lead to that growth or that GDP.

This is where there’s a really great example, actually, which is something which I’ll allude to and then reference explicitly within this legislation. That’s the story of green energy. If you actually follow the investment pathway for something like solar panels, for example, that initial transaction—that purchase and installing of solar panels—contributes to GDP. To begin with, it contributes to growth. But as soon as you have installed those solar panels and you, as a family or an individual or a household, have that sovereignty over your energy, you are no longer plugged into the grid and therefore no longer paying for that electricity, and therefore your clean, green energy, which is good for the planet, is good for reducing carbon emissions, is no longer contributing to GDP growth. That is just one of the many examples of the divergence between prosperity of society and of us as Aotearoa New Zealand and GDP growth.

Which brings me, to—I believe it’s clause 36 or 35—clause 35(4)(c) in the Venture Capital Fund Bill. This is really important because it speaks about the directions that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation must have regard to when they are utilising this $300 million Venture Capital Fund. That is that they must have a regard to the Government’s commitment to a low-emissions economy and, in paragraph (ca), the Government’s commitment to an inclusive economy.

I would, however, note that this doesn’t quite go far enough for where the Greens would like it to be. But this is something that I believe that, with the contributions of our co-leader and our economic spokesperson, the Hon James Shaw, has contributed to that discussion across the three parties in this Government to help get that in there. I would, however, note the contributions of New Zealand First in making sure that we do have a more human face to our economy in particular—and that being the parallels, or the Venn diagram as to what makes this Government work with regard to that commitment to an inclusive economy.

So this doesn’t go far enough, because it allows for, for example, the opening of a window where there is perchance, in some distant future, an oscillation of Government and other parties find themselves in charge of the reins of this country, and we may end up with an unfortunate situation like what we’re presently seeing with the State-sanctioned investment in fossil fuels under ACC at present—that billion dollars which is presently invested in those fossil fuels. It is quite simple. As we all know, every Parliament is sovereign unto itself to change those directions, which any Government may give. But, nonetheless, as many of those who’ve contributed so far to the debate have highlighted, this fills an important gap in our economy in Aotearoa New Zealand. This legislation, this Venture Capital Fund Bill, as administered by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, in opening it up and enabling, but also directing and channelling that $300 million directly into businesses—particularly, hopefully, small businesses—in this country is really crucial to helping those mums and dads that the National Party so often invoke.

But, in wrapping up my conclusion, I’d just like to say that it’s really critical that we end up continuing to move towards that clean, green economy and recognising the distinction between simple GDP growth, which we all now on the record explicitly recognise as not the sole measure of the wellbeing of our society and our prosperity. Kia ora.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 12 to Minister

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): I seek leave to correct an answer given during question time today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to a supplementary question to question No. 12 today, I answered that the Government has invested an extra $5.9 million into early intervention. It is actually $51.9 million the Government has invested in early intervention.

Bills

Venture Capital Fund Bill

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill

Third Readings

Debate resumed.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It’s my pleasure to speak on this Venture Capital Fund Bill. If you look back at the Budget this year, 2019, this is the only measure that could be arguably, possibly described as a pro-growth policy. Everything else was just extra spending, but you could argue this one. We intervene in the New Zealand economy to invest a lot in terms of the production of scientific ideas and innovation. We spend about $1.5 billion a year on science more broadly. We generate a lot of ideas through the university system. But, as a country, we’re relatively unsuccessful at translating ideas into successful large companies. There’s a few that go, and the private sector develops those very well. So the question is: is there a shortage or a limiting factor in the shortage of capital available for what’s called series A and B funding rounds for the development of new companies in the economy?

There is an argument that there is a difficulty in accessing that funding, and so this fund—which puts $300 million of taxpayers’ money into a fund to co-invest in such companies—we think is something that could make a difference if it’s done very well. So we’re prepared to support it.

I suppose the broader point that I’d make, however, is that it’s part of a wider Government economic policy which has been failing this country. If we look back at the situation we’ve got ourselves in today, we’ve got a Government that inherited a rapidly growing economy with surpluses as far as the eye could see and, within two short years, has turned that into a slowly growing economy in deficit. That transformation is remarkable. The absence of any clear economic growth strategy from this Government—we’re starting to reap the whirlwind of that in very short order. I don’t think anybody would have predicted that the turnaround could be as quick as what we’ve seen today: two broken promises in terms of the debt and also going into deficit.

When I look at Budget 2020, which follows on from the Budget that brought in this venture capital bill, when you look at the priorities—just transition, a future of work, Māori and Pasifika, child wellbeing, and mental wellbeing—they’re all very worthy, but there is nothing about growing the economy and nothing about economic growth. That’s what’s missing from so much of what this Government is about.

With the previous speaker, Chlöe Swarbrick, you’ve talked about saying that growth isn’t everything. Of course it’s not everything. People’s happiness in life is related to family relationships, the quality of our environment, and a whole host of things. The economy is not everything, but it’s important. If growth is slowing, that’s fewer opportunities for New Zealanders to look after themselves and their families, to spend on quality investment and healthcare and all those sorts of things that we like.

This Venture Capital Fund may, if it’s well organised and well operated and well run, make it easier for start-up New Zealand companies to get access to capital to grow in early stages. We hope that some of them will succeed. Many of them won’t—that’s the nature of venture capital. So we’ll be watching with great interest as to how this develops. But, if you are serious about growing the economy more broadly, this is by no means the most important thing. It’s about getting the basic settings right for the economy that can restore confidence so that people will invest generally.

Why investment generally has been drying up in this economy is particularly in relation to three things, really. The Government has driven up costs significantly right across the industrial relations space. Secondly, it’s created an enormous amount of policy uncertainty in every, every angle that you look at. And, thirdly, it’s demonstrated rank incompetence in the way that it carried out KiwiBuild and particularly infrastructure.

So we’ve heard big announcements today about infrastructure, but for two years this Government has done very, very little indeed. So the slow tram has still not started down Dominion Road, and it never will. So that’s what’s making people nervous about things. So National supports this bill but we do make the point that if you really want to grow the economy, there is a lot of other things that need to be done. Thank you very much.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to stand and speak to the Venture Capital Fund Bill. I think this bill is going to have a huge impact and significantly help grow the New Zealand economy, so I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to take a brief call on the third reading of the Venture Capital Fund Bill. I do reflect on what the previous speaker and our finance spokesperson have said. This was really the only positive growth item in the Budget, and National is supporting it. Three hundred million towards a venture capital growth fund is a good thing to do, but, as the Hon Paul Goldsmith said, the real question is how it’s spent and the efficiency of it.

I’d put that against some of the stats we’re seeing. Even today, some stats were revealed that show that the economy is not doing as well as it was. When this Government came into power, job growth was 10,000 a month. It’s now down to 3,000. GDP growth is now down to 2.1 percent—2.1 percent. But at the end of the day, there are some things that can be done for businesses as they transition in a growth phase, and as they go from a small company to a larger company. If we don’t want them to go offshore, then there is an ability to help. Three hundred million sounds like a lot of money, and it is; 220-odd million is coming from the super fund; 80 million is pretty much a new investment.

We have raised some issues about how, in fact, the Minister can direct the governors of the super fund as to how they manage things. We think that’s dangerous, but, on balance, our side is supporting it. I support it. I think it is a useful addition to the New Zealand economy, and I’m happy to commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call David Seymour—five minutes.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in sole opposition, it would seem, to this abomination of a bill—a house of cards built on a series of fallacies. One thing all New Zealanders want is to be richer, to have a higher level of productivity so that they can work less, earn more, and enjoy their life to a greater extent. That is what’s agreed upon. But in a pathetic series of contributions in this debate over the last few minutes and hours, we have heard absolutely no justification, logic, or explanation for why taking $300 million of taxpayers’ money and putting it into a venture investment fund is going to help us achieve that goal.

So we understand what the goal is and we understand that rhetorically, at least, taking some taxpayer money and putting it into some businesses sounds like something that might make us more productive, more sophisticated in terms of our economy, wealthier, and achieve our goals. But there is no explanation of why the policy should work. Nobody that is supporting this bill in this House has gotten up and actually given us the explanation.

The first fallacy they might want to address is the old French economist Bastiat: “Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas.” There is what is seen and what is not seen. Everybody stands up and talks about how all the money, the $300 million, will be used, the companies that will take it, and what they will do with the money. They all want to talk about what is seen. Not one of them talks about the fact that in order to do as much, the same money—$300 million—has to be taken off taxpayers who could have used it to achieve their own goals.

As soon as one confronts that fallacy, suddenly the benefits evaporate, unless somehow the Government has greater knowledge about how to invest taxpayers’ money and what to invest in than those taxpayers do. I say to the people clamouring to get their hands on this money: if you find it hard to get taxpayers to invest in the business, well, I don’t mean to be rude, but maybe they are trying to tell you something. Because the fact is the only reason that this money will get invested is not because it’s a good investment; it’s simply because it is politically fashionable to do so.

And here comes the third fallacy. The second one was that politicians or the guardians of this fund have a better idea how to spend taxpayers’ money than the people who earned it, but the third fallacy is simply the idea that somehow we’re going to get better incentives for people spending other people’s money. So the first problem is they’ve got to take the money off somebody else. The second problem is that they have no knowledge of how to better invest it, and the third problem is they have worse incentives.

The incentives that people have when they’re spending other people’s money is ultimately to do what is politically fashionable. We’ve already heard it in this debate. The Green Party thinks you shouldn’t invest in certain companies because they think those companies should be deemed politically unfashionable. The incentives for people investing this money are not to put it where it’s going to best satisfy the customers of the companies getting invested in, the incentives are not to get the best return for the taxpayer; the incentives are to do what is best politically.

For all those reasons, you have got other people’s money being spent by people who have no greater knowledge about how to spend it, by people whose incentives are actually more political than economic. It’s a disaster, and what’s really incredible is that ACT is alone in opposing it, because it’s one thing to criticise the Government for doing it. In a way, they don’t know any better. The truth is if they knew what to invest money in, they wouldn’t be doing this job. But what is truly shameful is to have the leader of the National Party on the black and white tiles complaining about Government waste, while his colleagues are in here trying to justify—and badly—voting for this bill. ACT proudly opposes this public policy abomination.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am really proud to rise and talk about the Venture Capital Fund Bill. So everything the previous speaker said, I totally disagree with, and I think exactly the opposite, basically. This is a business-friendly bill. I commend this to the House.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): I rise in the slightly strange position this afternoon of agreeing with Chlöe Swarbrick and disagreeing with David Seymour, which is a slightly foreign position for me to be in, but I’ll do what I can to disagree with Chlöe Swarbrick’s contribution, because there were a couple of elements in it that I did disagree with.

I do just want to cover off, of course, that we are supporting this bill, as Mr David Seymour has pointed out, because we do see it as one of the few pro-growth measures that was in the Budget, and we do see a role for Government in being involved in venture capital, involved in a venture capital ecosystem.

But I did want to point out some of the points that Chlöe Swarbrick made in relation to clause 35 of the bill, where she talked about the fact that Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation must have regard to the Government’s commitment to a low-emissions economy, the Government’s commitment to an inclusive economy, and the Government’s wider economic policy, as specified in the direction.

I have concerns about all three of those aspects of the bill, actually, because what it essentially means is that the Guardians will be required to look at other things other than just growth. They’ll be required to look at things that will yield lower returns than if they went for higher returns. My view is that, certainly when it comes to our superannuation and in the money that we are going to rely on in our retirement, the Guardians should be looking for, ideally, the biggest returns they can get, rather than other considerations.

But the two concerns I have in particular with that are that she actually didn’t fully explain what that clause means. It’s because it’s not just in relation to the guardians having regard to those things. It’s that the guardians have to have regard to the directions from Ministers. So what it means is that a Minister of the Crown would be able to direct the Guardians to have regard to a low-emissions economy, an inclusive economy, and to the Government’s wider economic policy. I have concerns about that, because what it would mean is that a future Green Minister could say, “Right. Well, from now on, growth is no longer our consideration. We’re not worried about how much the Superannuation Fund or this fund actually yield. We’re only concerned about climate change mitigation, or only concerned about ensuring that the wealth disparity in New Zealand reduces. We’re not actually worried at all about getting higher returns for our superannuation.” So I do have concerns about those aspects.

Earlier in the debate Mr Mark Patterson said this bill would “plug a hole in the New Zealand economy”. I thought about that afterwards, because I think to myself, “Well, what an awfully large hole this Government’s dug themselves in when it comes to the economy.”, because what we’ve had this afternoon or earlier today was the HYEFU, which is the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, come out. What that showed is that we’ve now got a projected deficit for the first time in quite a few years after having this Government come in just a couple of years ago, two years ago. And at the time Treasury were projecting, I think, from memory, surpluses out to 2032, which is about as far as they can project.

So it’s quite staggering now that we have this situation just two years in that we have such low growth that the Treasury are now projecting that we’re going to have a deficit for the first time. So for Mark Patterson to jump up and say that in some way this $300 million fund is going to plug that hole, I find quite staggering, because, as my colleagues on this side of the House have pointed out, it’s not actually $300 million of new money at all; $240 million of it comes from the Superannuation Fund, which, as I pointed out, should be trying to get high yields and higher returns for our superannuation, and $60 million of it comes from the Venture Investment Fund.

So we’re standing up in this House, debating this legislation about $300 million and a brand new fund, when actually it’s not $300 million of new money at all. All it is is $300 million dollars of reallocated money that, as my colleague Mr Seymour has pointed out, has come from taxpayers. So it’s not as if this is a brand new wonderful fund which is going to—

David Seymour: What does the member think of that?

ANDREW FALLOON: Mr Seymour has actually almost talked me into voting against this bill. I won’t, though, because we are trying to encourage the Government to come up with pro-growth policies. We do see this as one of the very few pro-growth things that the Government has proposed. So we will vote for it. But I do have concerns about those things, and I do, in particular, have a concern with Ms Chlöe Swarbrick, who wants to go even further than those ministerial directions. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Mr Speaker, just a short call to say that the double-talk coming from the opposite side is astounding—you know, they double-talk all the time about the bill not being on target but they’re 100 percent behind it—because they created the hole that our New Zealand First member was talking about earlier. A hole in the New Zealand economy? Absolutely, no doubt about that. A hole created because of the nil investment in terms of the New Zealand economy over nine years. And that’s why we’ve got a great investment from Minister Robertson.

David Seymour: What does the purpose statement in the bill say?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’re talking about a $12 billion investment, Mr Seymour, in terms of infrastructure—a fantastic investment from the Minister of Finance—and Mr Seymour should know, as the Opposition should know, that it’s not just about numbers, numbers, numbers. It’s about people, people, people—something that the National Party forgot about a long, long time ago. Basically, the National Party are a disgrace, and the reality is that they support us because they’re double-talkers. The public know that, and that’s why they’re going to lose next year’s election.

I’m very happy to support this bill. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Venture Capital Fund Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 119

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

I thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their consideration of this bill. The select committee has not recommended any changes. In light of this it is my intention to very briefly set out the intent of the bill.

It is critical that public money is spent responsibly. The formula that Parliament previously put in place was intended to rein in significant pay increases for members of Parliament. Unfortunately, it has not had that effect at all and MPs’ pay has outstripped inflation significantly. The 2015 change removed the Remuneration Authority’s discretion in setting the increases as these increases were determined by a rigid formula. Since the 2015 changes, MPs’ salary increases have ranged from 2.46 percent to 4.06 percent per year, compared to average increases of 1.7 percent for the four years prior to the 2015 changes. In absolute dollar terms, the increases since 2015 have also been higher. The repeatedly high annual increases in pay set under this formula call into question whether the settings for determining MPs’ pay are fit for purpose.

This bill amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013 to establish a new process for how the authority sets the salaries of MPs. The bill restores the authority’s discretion to determine MPs’ salaries based on criteria. The criteria system is currently used by the authority to set the salaries of judicial officers, the Governor-General, and elected local authority officials, and has resulted in lower pay increases compared to members of Parliament. Although the circumstances of each role are different, this discrepancy suggests that the criteria-based system is a more appropriate one.

The bill also restores the requirement for the authority to consider the personal benefit arising out of MPs’ entitlements when setting their salaries. The bill requires the authority to make this year’s determination of MPs’ pay under this restored system.

Finally, the bill will link future reviews to the electoral cycle so that the authority would conduct one review after each general election and would set MPs’ pay for the entire term of Parliament specified on a year-by-year basis.

This bill establishes a new process for how the authority sets the salaries of MPs. This new process will strike a better balance between the interests of New Zealanders and those whose remuneration is being assessed. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call to support the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) in the second reading. This is a bill which in the Education and Workforce Committee we decided to not amend at all. So you can see the kind of support this bill received from all sides.

For some reason I was expecting a lot more submissions for this legislation, because when we talk about MPs’ salaries, for some reason there is a lot of interest amongst people. But we received only six submissions on this legislation. We didn’t hear from any submitters. So nobody appeared for an oral submission to the select committee, but that doesn’t diminish the value of their written submissions.

All I want to say is that this has been very non-controversial legislation in the select committee process and the recommendation that we made in the select committee process for this bill, for the report back to the House, is that the bill proceed without amendment. I have rarely seen this happen: when a bill goes to the select committee and we don’t make any amendments and we say that the bill actually should go through without any amendments.

This legislation clearly highlights that MPs come to this job not for financial reward; MPs come to Parliament to do better for New Zealand, to do better for their communities, because they really believe that they can make that difference. So they don’t come here for financial reward.

What we saw in 2015 was that because of the system that was followed at that time, MPs were getting an increase in their salary of 5.5 percent, and we thought that was not justifiable. So that’s why we decided to review two Acts: the Remuneration Authority Act and the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act. Through that review, what we did was link MP salary increases through a fixed formula to public sector wages. So this legislation now actually repeals that change that we did in 2015. So we are going back to giving that independence to the Remuneration Authority, not linking it through the fixed formula to public sector wages but using that criteria that is listed in the legislation.

I also want to highlight that we have realised that going back to the system that was there before 2015 actually would be better in our current circumstances, because if we look back to the increases that we received from 2011 to 2014, the average increase was around 1.7 percent, and if you look at the increase that we received from 2015 to 2018, that ranged from between 2.5 percent to 4 percent. Also, at the start of 2018, we realised that the increase that MPs—us, that we will get in our salary will be around 3.3 percent. We want to make sure that the increases that we get in our salaries are justifiable, and that’s why we think this is a bill which should go through and we support this legislation. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to briefly rise to commend the bill to the House. I think this is a very sensible bill which puts the setting of MPs’ remuneration back within a framework that delivered moderate and appropriate increases. I think that the previous regime that was set up under the Key Government was well intentioned, but in tying MP remuneration to public sector increases, it actually had the reverse outcome. Incidentally, I think there’s an interesting little lesson in there, which is: “Why might that be?” Primarily, it’s because public sector has retained a very strong level of collective bargaining across the economy and have been able to, therefore, argue for and successfully have higher pay increases. So that’s a good lesson there for workers about a good way of increasing your pay: join your union.

But in this case, I think the House is of one mind, which is that we want to see a more moderate and appropriate level of increases for members of Parliament. The formula, the set of criteria previously considered by the Remuneration Authority, achieved that, and this bill will take us back to that point, as well as having the very sensible reform of setting pay once every three years, which I think has a range of benefits instead of the annual process and some of the difficulties that arise from that. So I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) at this reading. I just want to commend this bill to the House on behalf of the National Party, and to acknowledge, firstly, the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, for the work that she’s done, and also the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Iain Lees-Galloway.

This is a bill about MPs’ pay. It’s one of those issues which gets a lot of interest in the community. Essentially, what this bill does is restore the independence of the Remuneration Authority to be able to set the pay for members of Parliament, and that’s a principle which I believe is going to lead to fair and reasonable pay remuneration for members of Parliament, something which will ensure that it isn’t something that varies depending on whether public sector pay is going up, down, or faster than the other, and something which allows members of Parliament to have nothing to do with what that determination is or the formula which creates it. I think that’s the appropriate way that it should be set, and so I commend this bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise, slightly unexpectedly, to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill. I see that Clayton Mitchell was due to be speaking on this, but he’s headed for the hills and allowed me to take the public wrath of, essentially, voting on my own pay rise. So this is perceived sometimes to be a contentious issue with the public, but I think the levels of submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee suggested that, I think, there is an understanding that a formula and an independent process—and perhaps returning it to that original formula—is a good one. It is probably quite a hard profession, if you could call it that, to evaluate in terms of where the appropriate setting should be. So that independent process and that independent formula that had worked pretty well prior to those 2015 submissions is the appropriate formula, and New Zealand First does support that.

I did sit on the select committee through this. It was non-controversial, and, as I say, having it sit in an independent process is where it should be. So New Zealand First supports this bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m absolutely fascinated to see how quickly the Government is now moving through its business. I honestly think that this week they have completed more business than they have in the previous three months. For most of this year, of course, they’ve been filibustering their own bills, and now finally they’ve decided they want to get on with it—maybe it’s because they recognise that the public sees what a joke the year of delivery has been and they better at least deliver some legislation.

Be that as it may, I am very pleased also to take a short call and to express my support for the bill, not least because, in my experience, the public appetite for hearing MPs talk about their pay and conditions is probably akin to a two-year-old’s appetite for beetroot and brussels sprouts. Whenever we talk about the subject, there’s a sort of general condemnation that we’re all overpaid, we’re all a waste of space—and there may be some truth to that in some cases.

Nevertheless, there are two serious points that I want to make. One is that I am very happy that we have a Remuneration Authority, because it is very important that we have no control over the way in which our salary is conducted; if we were to do so, there would then be some genuine reason for the public to express the sort of contempt and mirth that we so often hear. So I appreciate the work that the Remuneration Authority does and I just hope that they can find a formula that continues to be fair and minimises the anger of the public about the fact that we might ever get an increase in our salaries.

The other thing I just want to point out—and, Madam Speaker, I’m sure you’ll be familiar with this as well—is that I’m constantly surprised by how many people think that the old parliamentary pension scheme still exists. People say, “Oh, well, you’ve completed your three terms as a member of Parliament now, so therefore you automatically qualify for a pension.” Well, for anybody listening who’s labouring under that misapprehension, that scheme was abolished more than two decades ago—Madam Speaker might be able to tell me exactly the year it was, but I think it was around about the time—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I came in.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —yes it was; well, you’re a very young woman, Madam Speaker—that MMP was introduced in the mid-1990s. There is a different scheme, but we all have to contribute to it. I’m not going to explain it other than the fact that you do not automatically qualify simply by completing three terms as a member of Parliament, and I’d hope that the public would welcome that as well. This is a good bill; I’m very happy to support it.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Madam Speaker, I haven’t had a half as long and industrious career as you, but in my decade in Parliament I’ve seen this play out multiple times in our parliamentary history. A Government comes in, freezes the MP salary, and then later on has to unfreeze it and there’s a big boost. There’s been tinkering over my decade in Parliament, and, unfortunately, we still have not seen an enduring solution. So while the Green Party is supporting this—because it’s preferable to the status quo, which has seen unrealistic and, I think, indefensible pay rises for MPs—the fact is that I still don’t think we’ve got an enduring solution that’s going to see something with political and public support. Now, the previous speaker—I think, in jest—talked about how MPs didn’t want to speak long in this debate and draw attention because the public doesn’t want to see MPs talk about their pay. I don’t think that’s true. I think the public don’t want to see MPs once again tinker with MP pay when they’d rather see an enduring solution.

Now, we support this legislation because it’s better than the status quo, but it is not the ideal solution. For many, many years—probably 10 years now—the Green Party have been advocating for a much more robust, clear system that was transparent, easily understood by the Remuneration Authority, by politicians, and by the public, that was actually based on a clear metric. Now, the problem, of course, is that while this is better than the status quo, essentially we’re kicking the ball back to the Remuneration Authority, who have six criteria on which to base their decisions. Now, what I think would be much easier for the public to understand, which would be much more politically defensible, would be to index our salaries to the nominal weekly median income.

What I mean by that is that by linking it to public servants—and the previous speaker, Michael Wood, mentioned how as public servants had seen pay increases, so MPs had under the previous system. But what public sector employees receive is not the same as what your everyday Kiwi, your median Kiwi on the street, actually receives. What I think is critical is that what we have seen is MPs’ pay actually increase faster than public servants’, because we’re taking a percentage. Now, a percentage on $50,000 is a lot less in weekly take-home pay than a percentage on $150,000, and equally so for higher remunerated positions in the Parliament. What the Green Party has advocated for and what we’re going to continue to advocate for is actually making it the nominal increase. So if the median New Zealand worker gets $5 extra in their pay packet a week, that’s what MPs should get.

Now, I appreciate this might not be the most popular position in the House, but I think it would be the most popular and defensible position amongst the public. Analysis the Parliamentary Library did for us found that had we had the system since 2011, when, again, we saw another political decision to freeze MPs’ pay, we would be $11,000 less remunerated as a result if we’d used this nominal median income.

Now, I think it’s important to reflect we are in the top 2 percent of income earners, so I’m not going to take a quick call to try and not draw attention to it. I think we have to face up to the fact that we are very well remunerated for the work that we do, and, actually, if the public’s going to see continuing pay increases, it should be indexed, and I think if you were going to index it to one thing, it’s the median worker and how they’re doing.

Now, I think the important point to raise, of course, is that if the median worker goes backwards, I think so should members of Parliament. It’s important that we actually reflect, if there are tough times out in the economic community, that we are sharing the burden, and that is not likely to happen using the current criteria. So while it’s good that we’re changing the system, while I’d point out the benefits of moving to a triennial or a three-year system rather than the annual pay rounds that we have seen in the past, we think there is a much more robust, enduring, positive, fair, transparent, clear solution ready and waiting. We’ve been advocating for a long time, and I just fear that in the future, we’re going to see the same situation play out once again, until we have such a clear, fair system.

But, still, the Green Party is able to support it, because it’s better than the status quo, and we’d like to acknowledge all those who submitted and played a role in the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d like to acknowledge the committee and the chair and thank Parliament for making a step in the positive direction here today. Kia ora koutou.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was privileged to be on the select committee that took this particular bill through to this point, the Education and Workforce Committee. I take some of the points from the previous speaker, Gareth Hughes, but the problem fundamentally that I have with what he said is he’s purporting to have the ideal solution. What we found out through the select committee process is that there are a gazillion ideal solutions when it comes to MPs’ pay. Everyone has a different solution, and we were quite surprised, as pointed out by Dr Parmar, that only six people submitted on this. We really genuinely thought that we’d be facing a much longer hearings process.

Here’s an example of how wide and varied opinions can be on this topic. One particular submitter wanted us to define “fair relativity”, a phrase used in the bill, when it comes to MPs getting fair relativity in regards to levels of remuneration received elsewhere. As a select committee team, the officials—and good luck to the independent authority that decides all these things. The term “fair” is such a subjective concept, so it’s so fitting and right that this be taken out of our hands and into an independent authority.

I’d just make one more comment, and that is that we support the bill, and we also believe that it’s a good thing that the review will be once every three years following an election, so we don’t have what some may call tweaking—we don’t have that on a sporadic and erratic basis; we have consistency. That’s exactly what this bill is aiming to achieve. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This is a split call—Dr Liz Craig.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, because what this bill is going to do is return discretion to the Remuneration Authority in terms of sitting MPs’ pay, rather than having to rely on a strict formula, which ended up inadvertently with very large pay increases for MPs. So instead, what it’s going to be doing is allowing MPs’ pay to be based on a range of different criteria, and they include relativity but also the prevailing economic conditions. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Madam Speaker—

David Seymour: Got to be in to win.

NICOLA WILLIS: —I rise to support this bill, and eagerly await the member David Seymour’s contribution, which he’s clearly enthusiastic about making.

In starting my contribution, I want to give a bouquet to Gareth Hughes, a member in this House who I don’t often agree with and a retiring member who has had a lot of time to reflect on matters in this House. I think he is correct when he says that members of Parliament should be incentivised to make sure that the median wage is rising and that we as members of this House aren’t getting so removed from the typical New Zealand worker that we’re not incentivised to see those wages increasing. In fact, here on the National side of the House, we think it is a fundamental role of any Government to ensure that average wages are rising and that they’re keeping up with the cost of living and, in fact, that people are getting ahead.

All of us, when we are making policy decisions in this House, when we are determining which way we do things, should be thinking about the impact that policies will have on the wages of typical Kiwi earners. So I appreciated that contribution. National supports this bill. We support the independence of the Remuneration Authority to determine MPs’ salaries based on criteria. We support linking the reviews to the electoral cycle, and we support restoring the requirement for the authority to consider the value of the personal benefit of entitlements. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I understand this is a split call—David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. It would have been very simple to do something that was clear, simple, and, ironically enough, endorsed by the Green Party. The story of MPs’ pay has been the search for finding somebody to blame, and for a long time it was the Remuneration Authority. They set it with some discretion, and then that became unpopular. So then the thought was perhaps if the pay of MPs was tied to a mathematical formula, it would be easy to say, “Well, this is what the formula says.” The only small difficulty was that the formula presented MP pay rises much larger than anticipated. So we are now throwing out the idea of having a mathematical formula, in order to go back to discretion of civil servants in deciding MPs’ pay. Having failed at blaming a mathematical formula, we’re going to go back to trying to blame people.

The problem is that there was a solution—strangely enough, elucidated by Gareth Hughes of the Green Party, of all people—that actually would have been much better. The solution is simply that MPs’ pay, rather than being tied to the pay of public servants as it has been for the past several years, should be tied to the median wage of the New Zealand worker, because to whom MPs’ pay is tied not only changes the incentives of MPs but tells us something about the purpose of this place, the purpose of members of Parliament, and what our values and aspirations are.

The problem with the old formula is that if any of those signals are to be taken seriously, then we aspire to be a country with higher paid civil servants—right? That’s what, under the old formula, MPs had to do if they wanted to get paid more, and what they should be doing is making New Zealand wealthier and more productive, because one of the real public policy and performance scandals of New Zealand in the last couple of decades has been anaemic growth in productivity. Perhaps a related scandal is that over the years that the previous arrangement was in place, MPs’ pay went up so rapidly because public servants’ pay went up so rapidly, and public sector productivity has been rubbish over that time.

One could comment, having listened to some of the speeches that preceded mine, about the productivity of the MPs who have been receiving these pay rises, too—the quality of outputs for the effort put in perhaps not being as high as it might be.

Nevertheless, we are missing an opportunity here. By seeking to blame a Remuneration Authority for any unpopular decisions about MPs’ pay, we have missed the opportunity to retain the strategy of using a mathematical formula, and we’ve missed the opportunity to pick the correct mathematical formula that would have aligned members of Parliaments’ incentives with something much more important than raising the pay of the public sector. We could have actually chosen to align MPs’ incentives with the productivity and median wages of New Zealand. Simple: New Zealand gets richer, MPs get paid more; New Zealand gets poorer, MPs get paid less. How difficult is it to understand that? Well, actually, it’s clear to understand, and that’s another one of the advantages of taking this strategy.

You see, the real issue underneath all of this, which no one else will say, is that it’s about MPs finding someone to blame for unpopular decisions about their pay. If it was linked to the median wage of the average or the median New Zealand worker, then it would be simple enough and justifiable enough that nobody would complain. So not only would that alternative advanced by Gareth Hughes have been better in terms of performance and incentives, it actually would have been more durable and effective in solving the real problem these politicians here are grappling with, which is how to blame someone for unpopular decisions about our own pay.

Nevertheless, that opportunity has been missed. We’re going round in circles, and I’m quite happy to be opposing this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): It’s a delight to stand and talk on this Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2). I wasn’t a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, and I have not, up until very recently, reviewed the legislation. Quite simply, I see this bill as having no fixed formula, a review set to the electoral cycle so that at the beginning of coming into Parliament you know what your salary will be for the next three years, and consideration for the authority to put the value of personal benefits in. I think that this bill is very practical. It’s very sensible. I acknowledge there are different opinions in the House; however, I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and to be the last speaker from the National Party on this bill. There have been a lot of points that have been traversed today into this bill. So just to summarise some of those points: MPs, by and large, don’t do this for the pay. On this side of the House, if we were doing this for the pay, we’d be in the private sector. We do this because we earnestly want to make a difference and improve the lives of New Zealanders.

This is about valuing the contribution of MPs. I know that that’s very subjective. My own late father suggested that members of Parliament were overpaid, and then there are other people that I’ve spoken to who have said we’re underpaid. So this is very subjective, but I believe in the Remuneration Authority, and giving the Remuneration Authority the authority to actually do this and to assess MPs’ pay is important. National supports this bill, and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Well, I’ve got the last say, and that’s always a good thing, and it’s always a very difficult topic to talk about. We’re much more humble and have humility on this side of the House. We’re here because we’re privileged and honoured to be here and the rest as such. But, look, I remember when I was chair of the Performance Review Committee for the chief executive officer of the Wellington City Council—always difficult; the ratepayers always got a little upset when you had to adjust things to certain levels, and some outfit told you that this is how much you had to pay and then we paid it, and, of course, great uproar. So we’re a bit more smarter, I think, in central government, and we’re going to give that discretion to the Remuneration Authority. They’ll do a good job—different criteria—and I think we’ll await the results. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Ayes 119

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I seek leave for all provisions of the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Clauses 1 to 5 and Schedule

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I want to echo the comments I made yesterday in thanking members of the House for their constructive work to bring the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill back to the House with a degree of speed, and I want to thank them for the amendments that they have suggested.

I want to begin, though, by acknowledging again, as I did in my first reading speech, the family of Mason Pendrous. I’ve been reluctant to make any further comment on the case of Mason whilst the coroner was undertaking their investigation. I understand that they have reported their findings today, and I want to acknowledge how difficult that is for his family. Mason died whilst living in university accommodation at the University of Canterbury. The coroner was able to confirm where he died; unfortunately, because his body had been there for some time, they were unable to confirm the cause of his death. I do want to acknowledge that, for the family, that will always leave them with a lot of unanswered questions—questions that we will never be able to answer in this House, questions the coroner has not been able to answer. In fact, nobody is going to be able to give them the answers that they seek. What we can do in this House, though, is take the steps that we can reasonably take to ensure that no family finds himself in that position in the future.

I think that what we’ve shown in the last month or so, as the House has considered this matter, is that, in fact, we all want to do that. We all want to ensure that, when students move into accommodation that is provided by a tertiary education provider, they are given some certainty around the level of pastoral care that they will be provided. I believe that the issuing of a code of practice is going to ensure that we can give that surety. Of course there is still going to be a need for the institutions themselves to look closely at the policies and practices that they have in place to make sure that they are as robust as they possibly can be, and I believe that the code of practice sets up the framework in which they can do that. So, again, I think that the interim code of practice that we’ll be issuing this side of Christmas will give families certainty that, as we head into the new academic year in 2020, there are rules in place where there has been a regulatory gap.

And then over the course of the next year, we can work constructively with all those who have an interest: students themselves, their parents, the tertiary education providers, and others to make sure that there is a really robust code of practice in place from the beginning of 2021. So the interim code—the work is now being finalised on that so that we can issue that as soon as this bill is passed. I believe that that’s something that the House has expressed a desire to facilitate happening and I want to thank all members for that—and then we can make sure that we have something further in place.

I do understand that there are questions that have been raised by the New Zealand Treasury, by the Opposition around the potential fiscal implications of this. We do need to work very carefully through that. It hasn’t been possible to do all of that detailed analysis in the time frame required to get the interim code in place. But, again, I think that there is a desire, a hope across the House, to keep a very active overview and a very active watch on this work as it continues to happen so that we can make sure that those issues are addressed.

The Government has put in place interim funding to ensure that the code can be adequately monitored through the first year of operation. And then over the course of the next year, as we do that further, we can look at what further financing may be required to ensure that putting the code of practice in place in the longer term is properly supported. I’m very happy to answer any specific questions or address any specific issues that members may wish to raise. I do again want to acknowledge that members have worked very constructively to bring the bill to this point, and I thank them for it.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re in support of this bill and the details which we traversed yesterday, so we understand the intent, the purpose, and the urgency that brings it here to the House and the collaborative point that we’ve reached. Again, I want to acknowledge Universities New Zealand and those who, potentially, had the most to lose in this bill, considering they were exempted from the Residential Tenancies Act, when they came to the Education and Workforce Committee and said they understood the need for legislation. I think it was clear that really even those who might have felt most aggrieved were on board with the need for this. I think that’s a good thing.

I’d like to continue the discussion that at some point in the future we might be able to bring the international code and the domestic code into one form, albeit that there may need to be a position, potentially, for children—a code for children. But this has been futureproofed, so I think our interests are allayed in that way—that the legislation we’re enabling has the ability to futureproof those desires.

I think, thirdly, what has been most reassuring to us in the development of the code, which now passes to officials—so we’re just enabling the code to be developed—is the fact that it’s a disallowable instrument. And that was sort of a safety net underpinning it for us with the privileges that a member of the Regulations Review Committee has to bring this back to the House—or indeed any member in a slightly more protracted course. I think that was reassuring and gives us some faith that officials will do their best and diligent work. If we have any concerns we could bring it back and debate it, but I think that’s been a very reassuring part—bearing in mind the urgency that we’ve somewhat all agreed to, to propel this bill and move it forward—that it does have that underpinning it. So, we’re supporting this bill and are pleased with its content as it progresses this far. Thank you.

Clauses 1 to 5 and the Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Yeah, to be honest with you, Madam Chair, it’s a major concern to me that on something as serious as the terrorism suppression bill, we saw in the House yesterday on the second reading the Minister of Justice come down and take a call for five minutes. We didn’t see any of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee members in the House to take a call—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That member just about missed the call himself because he wasn’t paying attention.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and so I’d ask the Minister now who seems very passionate about it to take a call and actually let the committee know what your thoughts are on the terrorism suppression bill. It’s national security and it’s a shame to see that we don’t have the Minister of Justice in the seat. We don’t have the Minister in the seat today.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Speak to it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So, instead of the Minister on the other side of the Chamber, Carmel Sepuloni, wanting to shout down the person taking the call, stand up and take a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member can’t call another member to take a call. Back to the bill, please, Mr Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, the reality with this bill is that it completely fails at the first test. And the first test is quite simply this: that if we have someone returning from overseas that has been engaged in, or has been a sponsor of, or has supported any type of terrorist activity, we have to be able to pick them up at the border, have an interim control order or a control order in place that means the court is then able to put an order in place where we can monitor the person—our security agencies, whether it be the police or SIS can actually monitor the individual. And the bill completely fails at that first test and maybe the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, can actually stand and take a call on this.

The reason why it fails, and the evidence that we heard in the select committee, is quite simply this: if someone arrives in New Zealand having been a participant in some type of terror group, and let’s use Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), because actually that’s where—we know about someone returning, Mark Taylor, the “Bumbling Jihadi”, whatever we want to call him. The guy’s an idiot. There’s no doubt about that. But he’s actually quite a resourceful idiot because he somehow managed to get himself to Syria and linked up with ISIS. He’s just one. He’s not the only one. And I’d put it to this committee that actually the thing that catches Governments out is the stuff that they don’t know about, are the things that they don’t think about, and therefore they don’t put plans in place to actually deal with the unknowns or have the best chance to deal with the unknowns. We don’t know how many returning terrorists or people that have been involved in terror activity may turn up on our border.

The other thing that we do know for sure is that we like to think in a perfect world that our partners, whether it be Five Eyes partners or other coalition partners that have joined us, for example, as part of a broader coalition of 12 countries in Iraq and Syria to try to remove the threat of ISIS—we’d like to think that our systems would work properly and that we would be notified and that we would know about that person trying to get back to the country, back into New Zealand, that we were actually notified and we knew that they were on their way.

In a perfect world, this bill might work because it means that we do have time. The application can be made, the High Court can put a control order in place, and they can be picked up at the border. But the reality is this: we don’t live in a perfect world and the possibility that we could have someone arrive at our border without the proper red flags or notifications is real. And if we do have someone arrive at our border and we are notified, whether they’re in the air or even whether they are starting to come through customs, this is what the Government’s relying on. They’re relying on the Customs and Excise Act. They’re relying on the New Zealand Customs Service to be able to detain them. They’re probably going to have to break the law, because we had Customs officials in front of the committee and they have got very specific regulations that allow them to detain people. They can legally detain someone for up to four hours. The problem for the Government is this: we heard from the officials that there is no way—there is no way—that they can guarantee that an interim control order could be put in place within four hours and before that person legally had to be released and could walk straight out into the community.

It’s good to see the Minister of Justice in the Chamber. I hope that I don’t have to go back over this for him again. If I have to, I will, and, Madam Chair, I hope that you will give me the time to do that.

So we’re relying on—[Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Chair. So we’re now presented with the scenario where this person could walk straight out of the airport and straight into the community. That is a totally unacceptable risk. That is something that this Parliament and this Government has to ensure—has to make sure—cannot happen. Not 80 percent, not 90 percent, not 95 percent; we have to be 100 percent sure that that cannot happen. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, I challenge him to stand up and tell this committee and tell this Parliament and tell the country that he can 100 percent guarantee that we will not have a scenario—well, he shakes his head; just get up and do it—where we could have someone returning to our border that can be detained by Customs, probably outside their own rules and regulations and law, for up to four hours. The police that came in front of the committee said this.

They could not guarantee that they could have a surveillance team in place to pick up that person when they left the airport. What does that mean? That means that they just walk straight out into the community without us knowing what their intent is, or what’s in their mind. To me, that is a 100 percent unacceptable risk that’s being passed back on to the community. The Police themselves said that the amendment that the National Party was putting up to give our law enforcement agency the ability to actually stop, detain, and hold that person for up to 72 hours to allow the High Court to get a control order in place—they welcomed that. They wanted that power. I’d like the Minister to stand and tell this House why he wouldn’t work with us, why he wouldn’t sit down to discuss what we feel are seven very strong amendments and Supplementary Order Papers—that we will talk to—that strengthen this bill. Because to me—we’ll talk to the rest of the bill—it fails at the first test because we can’t stop that person, we can’t detain them. So what we’re saying to the country—and this is the reality and this is what happens, Minister, when you sell your soul to the Green Party, to a party that—

Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I believe that items relating to control orders are in Part 2 of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s correct, so if the member could resume his debate and talk about Part 1.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m very happy to, Madam Chairperson, because I’ll be taking several calls in Part 2 of the bill that relate to control orders, but back to my original point.

Brett Hudson: What is the purpose of the bill?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, and that’s what I’m talking to, the purpose of the bill, and I’m being very clear that this bill fails at the first test, at the purpose. The purpose is to pick up returning Kiwis that have been involved with sponsoring or assisting in some type of terror activity when they arrive at our border. That is the purpose of the bill. That’s the original meeting that I had with the Minister, that’s what was discussed, that’s what the imminent threat is, that’s why we’re trying to pass this legislation through the House as quickly as possible. It’s the right thing to do. It would have been nice—there was a three-month lag between that original meeting with the Minister and the actual bill being brought to the House—to have given the public and interested parties more time to make a submission. That was one of the big bugbears that actually came out through the select committee process: that it was a compressed process and there wasn’t enough time to actually look at it and make submissions. But this bill fails, and the Minister—instead of coming and sitting down with us and working with us to come up with a strong bill that will actually, genuinely protect our people in New Zealand, Kiwis, he didn’t want to do that. He sold out to the Green Party, a party that’s made—when he first brought this bill out, the party and the spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman, said it was “dog-whistling”. She said it was “dog-whistling”. She said, “There’s no place for this extra sort of dog-whistling in lawmaking.” She came out against the bill and now she’s leading it on behalf of the Labour Party and New Zealand First.

What does that say about the strength of the bill? It says this: that it’s weak and it’s not going to be strong enough to protect New Zealanders and Kiwis, which is what was meant to be the intent of it. So I’d ask the Minister to please stand and address the issues that I’ve raised in terms of the original intent of this bill. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I also would like to speak on the Part 1 aspects—in particular, the purpose of the bill and the way that the bill is not able to meet fully those purposes as set out in Part 1, I think; in clause 3, from memory. In doing so, I refer back to some comments that have been made at earlier stages of the House’s consideration of the bill, including the commentary to the bill and in relation to the likelihood of a relevant person being able to arrive unexpectedly on these shores.

Just to take a step back, the meaning of “relevant person” is given in clause 6—again, within Part 1, of course. There we’ve got a person who is 18 years or older—and I’ll return to that aspect, perhaps, in a separate contribution—who is or may be coming to New Zealand or has arrived in New Zealand and who, before their arrival in New Zealand, has done a number of different things. I don’t intend to examine each of those yet, but I do want to note the relevance of the person having arrived on these shores or the prospect of them doing so, in relation to the authorities being aware of that fact.

One of the National Party’s objections to the bill—in the sense that it is actually not strong enough, as the Hon Mark Mitchell has alluded to—is the possibility that an unexpected arrival could occur such that a longer period of time than four hours of detention would actually, in fact, be needed. The commentary makes clear that, from the National Party point of view, longer than four hours is needed, and it’s clear from the official advice—I think I read it correctly; I wasn’t at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s consideration from start to finish, but I did attend some—that it was “unlikely” that a relevant person could arrive unexpectedly. The word unlikely is not the same as impossible, of course. So we are allowing ourselves as a Parliament, if we’re to pass this thing in its current form, the possibility, even if unlikely, that a relevant person could arrive unexpectedly. From that point, or rather the point that a relevant person is taken into detention, the clock is ticking and it’s a short time frame indeed, at a mere four hours, that such action to detain them further for the purpose of protecting the New Zealand public would need to be observed. Relating to the “Main purposes” of the Act—with that being a subheading of “Purpose of this Act” at clause 3—we note that it is to protect the public from terrorism.

That is not qualified by such an adjective or concept as “likelihood”—in fact, it’s not an adjective at all, but the notion of likelihood. It’s implied that, in fact, what we are after is certainty, partly because we haven’t qualified it in that way, but also given the subject matter, namely the protection of the public from terrorism and the importance of that. That’s something that we should not leave to chance or mere matter of likelihood, but rather with as much certainty as it’s reasonably possible to obtain. Now, I do accept that it would be possible to say, “Well, 72 hours might not be long enough either”, and we’re merely arguing over a question of degree between four hours and 72 hours. But I think that there is a significant difference between those two such that we can justify an argument that four hours would not be long enough but 72 hours, three days, would, in fact, meet that purpose.

Of course, we do need to be careful from a Bill of Rights point of view that we don’t detain people a) unnecessarily or b) unnecessarily long. But, of course, in all human rights—indeed, civil rights, political rights, and so forth—a balancing act is to be achieved, with the weighing of the rights of the public at large to be protected from terrorism versus the rights of an individual who is suspected—yes, only suspected, and innocent till proven guilty—of something that would have a disproportionately severe effect on his or her fellow New Zealand residents, if I can use that shorthand. That’s a serious matter that we should concern ourselves with in this House. And so it is that—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m always thankful to the member who’s just resumed his seat, Chris Penk, because his commitment to intellectual rigour means that he cannot fudge what he actually wants to say, and he does not fudge his contributions to debates on bills such as this. His extraordinary attempt to create a problem where none exists means that, in fact, I have to say, with all due respect to him, he didn’t get there, and that’s, principally, because there is no problem.

So I know Mr Penk and the Hon Mark Mitchell, who spoke before him, are concerned that the objective as set out in clause 3 of this bill won’t be met—which is about protecting New Zealanders—and, of course, it will. The difference between, I think, the members of the National Party at this point in time in their history and the rest of us in Parliament is that the rest of us are not living in fantasyland. So we work on the basis of facts, we work on the basis of things that are actually happening, and when it comes to legislation like this that is about imposing restrictions on people’s liberty in the particular circumstances where there are allegations and real suspicions of terrorism having been committed or supported abroad, we do so on the basis of good information, generally provided by our intelligence services. I can say this because the nature of the New Zealand democracy and our Government and our Parliament is that, actually, the intelligence that I have access to as the Minister in charge of our spy agencies is made available to the Leader of the Opposition as well. That means it’s made available at least to senior members of the main Opposition party—and it is.

So members in that party know exactly what this bill is trying to get to and they know that the structure of the bill is such that it will meet the objectives set out in clause 3 of the bill, and I would just invite members for the remainder of the debate on this part and on subsequent parts that we actually stick to the real world, not the fantasyland stuff that sometimes creeps into debates of this nature.

I just wanted to say that I’ve heard what the members have said about the objectives of the bill. They are about keeping New Zealanders safe. They are about dealing with the very rare and confined circumstances associated with those who have left this country and who are entitled to return to it, who have fought abroad in ideological and philosophical and religious causes and have done so in a way that is antithetical to the interests and values of New Zealand.

There is a very small number of people to whom this could, and would, apply, and the bill is drafted to make sure that should any of those people return at any time, the rest of New Zealand will be kept safe. No one will arrive unexpectedly and no one arriving back will be a surprise. We know that and members opposite know that, and so this bill bears that in mind.

This bill has been done in the time frame that it has been done in because the risk of somebody returning has got much greater, and it is just a great pity that one of the great parties of this Parliament—and it has been since 1936—thinks that in this day and age, with the peculiar circumstances that they find themselves in, it’s OK to play politics on issues of national security. I think it’s a disgrace and it reflects poorly on members opposite. I won’t be engaging any further on that. I will answer sensible questions about the content of this bill.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Can I first of all thank the Minister for taking that call and assure him that in my many contributions in the committee stage of this Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Amendment Bill, I won’t be playing politics, but what I want is an assurance that this legislation will make me safe and my family safe and all the people who live in New Zealand safe from terrorism. That’s what this legislation has to be about.

I simply have a question to ask of the Minister: are the restrictions proposed in this legislation sufficient? The Minister nods his head and says, yes, they are. I don’t share that confidence that the Minister has, because we know, and he’s just told us in the committee stage today, that no one will be arriving back who is a surprise—I accept that—but these people who will be coming back will be known to him because of his involvement with New Zealand’s security services, and they will be known to New Zealand’s security services because they have been dangerous terrorists as they have gone overseas.

We know the story about Mark Taylor, the “Bungling Jihadi”, and I’ve seen the photographs of him strapped with ammunition and with guns on his shoulder, with that smirky smile. He will potentially return to New Zealand at some stage, and I am not convinced that this legislation is strong enough to protect me from that type of terrorist.

I say to the Minister, talking to the purpose of the Act, that the Act is to protect the public from terrorism, and we know that already politics have been played in this bill, because at one stage, Andrew Little, the Minister in charge, wanted to talk to National, and then he changed his mind and went and got the support of the Greens. The Greens initially had said that they would not support the legislation because, listening to Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Greens the other day, she felt that the human rights of Mark Taylor, the “Bungling Jihadi”, were above my concerns around safety, and I reject that. That person’s human rights do not come before the safety of all New Zealanders.

Then, when you look at the purpose of the Act and consider the two main purposes—“to protect the public from terrorism:”, and the second one is “to prevent engagement in terrorism-related activities in a country:”—they are logical. But you look at the incidental purpose, which is “to support the relevant person’s reintegration into New Zealand or rehabilitation, or both.”, and I would add to that “if possible”, because some of these people returning will simply not be able to be rehabilitated to be safe with New Zealand citizens.

You look at some of the conditions then imposed by, no doubt, the Greens to some of the control orders that are being promoted in the purpose of this bill: the curfew must not be imposed for any longer than 12 hours a day—so they impose a curfew on a person because he’s dangerous to New Zealanders, but put a restriction on it that it cannot be more than 12 hours a day; if that person is dangerous, he needs to be watched for a full 24 hours a day—electronic monitoring must not be imposed where a less restrictive condition would be sufficiently effective, and a person must not be required to attend a rehabilitation service unless the person has given their informed consent to do so. Those three clauses worry me because I know at whose insistence they were put into this legislation—the insistence of the Greens—and as we debate this legislation through the balance of this evening, I have no doubt the Labour Party will be very quiet. They won’t want to take calls, because they know that this legislation’s not strong enough. Deep down, they know it’s not strong enough, and the Hon Andrew Little shakes his head.

I say to the Minister that New Zealand was never immune from terrorism. We saw it on 15 March in my home city of Christchurch, and mark my words, sadly, we will see it again. I don’t have confidence—genuinely—that this legislation has been developed in a strong enough fashion, and in saying that, Mr Little, I am not attempting to play politics.

Hon Andrew Little: It’s exactly what you’re doing.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Oh, the Minister says that I am. I’m asking him to take my word that I’m not. I want legislation that is strong enough to protect law-abiding New Zealanders and that is not in favour of terrorists.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Well, I listened a few moments ago to the speech offered to the committee by Minister Andrew Little, in which he accused National of playing politics over this bill and tried to tug at some heartstrings by saying that it’s sad that a party with our long history should choose to take this course of action. I think it ignores the fact that we have three parties in Government at the moment who are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders and tell them that this bill somehow provides protection from those who would return to this country with evil, terrorist intent. There is no way that the National Party wants to be involved in a sanction or sanctioning or approving—or whatever term you might like to use—a bill that is fundamentally weak, and I think the disgrace here is that a party like the Labour Party, which has had a sound record through its many long years in this House of cooperating with the other large party in the House on security matters, chose not to in this case.

The Minister sits there and shakes his head, but let me tell the committee that the discussions that were entered into initially were not discussions. They were lectures—

Rt Hon David Carter: Ultimatums.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and they were ultimatums and they were “Here is the hard line on the table.”—here is the hard line on the table—“Follow this, or don’t be on board.” Well, there was no willing ear to hear that there might be a different view. I’m fascinated, for example, that the Prime Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the committee to adjourn—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I’ll be back.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Very difficult to resume a theme when there’s been a 1½ hour gap between the just over two minutes that I was speaking on before and now. But, essentially, what I was saying is that the purpose that is stated in this bill is a complete illusion. New Zealanders cannot feel safe because of this bill. They cannot feel that everything is being done to protect their interests against the opportunity for terrorists to come into this country and perpetrate their terrorist acts, because of this bill.

It’s fascinating that the Prime Minister in recent days has gone out and talked about Mark Taylor. Mark Taylor is the “Bumbling Jihadi”, I think the media have fondly named him. The media do this country a disservice by naming him that way because it makes him sound harmless. He’s not harmless. Our security services know he’s not harmless. He is a very, very bad man, and because he now finds himself on the end of a losing side, where there’s, apparently, no more opportunity for him to cut people’s heads off, he suddenly wants to present himself as some kind of a victim living in a refugee camp in Syria, stateless because he decided to destroy his own passport. He wants the New Zealand Government to get him back. I’ve no doubt there are politicians sitting in the Chamber tonight who are quite keen to help him out. The good thing is that because he made those threats against New Zealanders with the suggestion that there should be a number of violent acts perpetrated around Anzac Day a few years ago, he will be arrested at the border, because that is inciting a crime, and, apparently, he’s able to be arrested in that way.

But the point is, there could be these sorts of people coming back into New Zealand, where that is not immediately known—that is not immediately known. So four hours for the maximum time that someone can be detained from the time they land in New Zealand, make their way off the aircraft, or off the ship, or whatever it is that they used to come into the country, into some kind of immigration control area where they can be identified and held up, four hours is not enough time to do the sorts of checks that have already emerged around Mark Taylor. So what we are saying is: why can’t it be a bit longer?

One thing that will interest some New Zealanders is that if someone is being deported from Australia because they’re some kind of recidivist thief, or some other such, then they can be detained for an even longer period of time. Someone who apparently does have New Zealand citizenship can be detained for a longer period at the border than someone who is known to be a terrorist.

And then, look, the Minister shakes his head. He seems to have an incredible grip on the law in New Zealand! He looks at me incredulously because he’s says, “I am the Attorney-General; of course I know about the law.” Well, if he did, he would admit that this law is completely inadequate for the purpose that is being set out. He continues to shake his head.

I said earlier there were negotiations between the New Zealand National Party and the Government. But the negotiations—

Hon Aupito William Sio: Then you changed your mind.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Aupito William Sio, they were not negotiations. They were a list of demands put on the table by Andrew Little, and the ultimatum given “Go with this or don’t go in it at all.” And when we looked—

Hon Andrew Little: What planet are you on?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I’m sorry, Mr Little asked me what planet I’m on. Mr Little, you’re the one, sir, who is not on the planet. You are the man who is presiding over a piece of legislation that is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders and tell them that this will protect them from returning jihadists and other terrorists to New Zealand. This is the man who knows that we have a watch list in this country of a large number of people, that we are part of the Five Eyes network that will give us all sorts of other information, and that we have other security intelligence arrangements that will give us information about these people, and all of those countries—all of those countries—have far tougher legislation for their returning terrorist fighters and others who might seek to come into their countries than we do in this legislation. That is a simple fact.

So what we have is a watered-down version. It’s watered down because the Government places more interest in its survival as a coalition—although New Zealand First’s position is completely unable to be understood in this circumstance—all because the Green Party has stuck their head up and said, “This is what we want, and this is our price for staying involved.”

So, when we see a bill that says Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill and we read the purpose, we have to read behind that purpose to find out what can actually be done, what can be done to control those people who come into this country. Well, there’s a list that we’re going to discuss in the next part; so I won’t go on to that. But what it says in this first part here is that none of those conditions need to be put in place. They are not exhaustive, it says, and they are not particularly—meaning that they must not be always used in every case. So we can have people coming into this country, they can have a control order put on them, but there will be no provision for that person to be confined to one particular part of the country. They can go off wherever they like. Of course, they don’t have to be monitored for 24 hours, just whenever they want, up to 12 hours, I understand. Then, of course—

Rt Hon David Carter: Yeah, not allowed any more than 12 hours.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yeah, that’s right. No one is allowed to monitor them for more than 12 hours. Well, what do they think they’re going to do in those other 12 hours if they’ve got evil intent?

The other point I’d make here too is that, when it comes to things like electronic monitoring, if there is no control over where a person can go, what happens when they move out of range, no longer under other monitoring. They don’t have to report in on a weekly basis, or a fortnightly basis, or a monthly basis. They can do whatever they like.

So it is a very, very weak bill and almost denies the fact that we do have a number of people who might be in the category of returning terrorists—you can’t talk too much about that—but we also, of course, are slowly opening our borders to more and more people who come from countries where they could hide themselves in refugee numbers. I think—

Hon Aupito William Sio: Oh, come on.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Sio goes “Oh!”. “Oh!” he says. He’s the same man who allowed his Government—his Government sat in Cabinet—to completely miss the boat and allow the country he was born in to suffer the measles epidemic at the moment. So you sigh all you like, Mr Sio. The reality is that this is a very, very weak bill. This gives the benefit of the doubt to terrorists who turn up on the doorstep. It virtually says that, look, we’re going shake your hand, we’re going hold you here for a couple of hours, and see what we can do. We might have to put a control order on you because that’s what we’ll tell the public.

Hon Clare Curran: Gerry, sit down.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! You use his whole name.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: “Oh, they’re under a control order.” But it’ll be a meaningless exercise and have absolutely no effect on the efforts of those people to perpetrate the terrorism that they want.

So here we have a Government that actually—we also know it’s here. It was brought in very suddenly because they’re a Government in trouble, out of step with New Zealanders, and this definitely proves it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I take any more speakers, I know we have relaxed the rule on “you” and are trialling that, but the way that was used then is not in order. So just cool it.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to just respond to some of the continued assertions by members opposite in relation to this bill. It is in relation to the purpose of the bill, clause 3, which sets out the objectives of it—the purpose of it—which is to protect the public from terrorism, to prevent engagement in terrorism-related activities in the country, and to support the relevant person’s reintegration into New Zealand, or rehabilitation, or both. There are two principal points I want to make.

Hon Mark Mitchell: You’ve sold your soul.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The first is this: we should remember the origins of this bill and its objectives.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member Mark Mitchell said, “You’ve sold your soul.” I expect you to pull him up in the same way that you pulled me up.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I apologise, I did not hear that. If the member did say that, he’ll stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I said, “You sold your soul”, Madam Chair, but I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, well, I think, in fairness, that is in the same vein.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He withdrew and apologised.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Did you withdraw and apologise? He did.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair. So the origin is this: the issue of returning foreign terrorist fighters has been known about for some time. It’s not the only thing that’s been known about. The problems with the Terrorism Suppression Act have been known about since 2007—2007. This piece of legislation has been so problematic the police basically gave up on it and said, “We can’t enforce it. We can’t do things under it.” The Government of nine years from 2008 had the opportunity to fix this legislation up, and you know what they did? You know how many changes they made to it? Absolutely none, and they come here now and lecture this committee on how to make the legislation much better. They did nothing. They have nothing to offer this House on preventing terrorism abroad and preventing people who have committed terrorist activity abroad coming here and how to keep New Zealanders safe. They have nothing to contribute on that. They are totally morally bankrupt when it comes to lecturing this House on this.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! [Interruption] Order! I appreciate that there’s some strong feelings, but I’d actually ask the Minister to address the bill. We’ve had almost two minutes now, and I would like him to talk to the bill in front of the committee. That’s what this process is for, and the role of the Minister in the chair is there to answer questions and explain what his piece of legislation is around.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m responding to the assertions made by members opposite.

The other assertion made was that, in developing the bill and, no doubt, establishing its objectives, there was a meeting between myself and members of the Opposition, and it was suggested—it was asserted—that it was a meeting involving instructions and ultimatums. Now, I have to agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee: that’s exactly what happened. It’s exactly what the Leader of the Opposition spent the meeting doing—tabled a set of claims and said, “We must have that.” So we went through it bit by bit, we adjourned the meeting, and within the hour my office got back to them and said, “Here are some things we can agree on.” And the response was “We want more. That’s not good enough.” So there was no willingness at all, and having publicly said they would support it, then said they were doubtful about it, then said they might support it, and then said they wouldn’t support it, I gave up with them. They can’t be relied on. So developing a piece of legislation to achieve the objectives set out in clause 3 was not going to be done with members opposite, because they just want to play politics.

So we went back into the Government and we said you know what? To all the parties in Government, you’re in Government now. National security is the responsibility of Government, and we have to keep New Zealanders safe. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what we’ve done. It is a great pity that members opposite cannot bring themselves to fulfil their responsibilities as a large party in this Parliament and look to the interests of New Zealanders first and look to the interests of the security and safety of New Zealanders first, because they would rather play politics. That is disappointing.

But the reality is that the purpose set out in clause 3 of this bill will be fully fulfilled by the rest of the content of this bill. As we get through the rest of the debate tonight, we will see, and I’ll respond to the assertions made by the Hon Mark Mitchell, although in relation to Part 2, when we come on to Part 2, because that’s very important. The scheme of the Act is very important, and what it does will be very important, too.

I remain totally confident that the bill will do the job that it has set out to do, which is to keep New Zealanders safe in the face of those who are entitled to return here from conflict zones where they have gone to engage in combat and conflict and terrorist activity and in other activity with an ideological, philosophical, or religious cause. Those people do pose a risk. That risk is rising, and we have to respond. This Government has responded. It’d be nice to have done it with the cooperation of members opposite, but they’ve fudged and mudged and faffed and fiffed around so that it is simply not possible. They are a disgrace. They’re an embarrassment to their own. They will get over this generation of failures, but we will get there. But we have to act. The Government has to act. All parties in Government have taken the responsibility of being in Government, discharging their responsibilities in relation to national security, clearly set out in the objectives of this bill, and this bill will do the job that is set of it. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t planning to take a call, but after listening to that utterly vacuous and disingenuous contribution from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No facts.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —I have to respond. Absolutely no facts, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee has just said. To accuse the current Opposition, the National Party, of lacking a commitment to security issues and of behaving in a disgraceful manner is so far from the truth that it has to be refuted. The fact of the matter is that there is no party in this Parliament that has a prouder record in defending the security of this nation—absolutely no party that has a prouder record than the National Party. The Minister in the chair knows that.

The Minister in the chair also knows that he wanted initially to have the support of the National Party, but after he said, “Do it my way. Be reasonable. There is no other way. I’m not interested in negotiating with you, I’m not interested in compromise; I simply want you to do it my way, for you to lie down, roll over, be a poodle in the corner.”, well, the National Party said that isn’t good enough. At that point, the Minister said, “Well, I don’t have to deal with you. I’ll go and talk to the Greens, and instead I will compromise till the day is long. I will do all sorts of things that I would never consider doing if I was really going to take a responsible approach to national security.”

And isn’t it interesting that the Minister’s head is suddenly down? He has stood up for the last five minutes and lambasted the National Party Opposition, he’s accused us of all sorts of disgraceful things, and now, suddenly, he’s more interested in what’s on his phone. Well, Minister, I say to you, you did not negotiate in good faith. You certainly did not negotiate with the National leader or senior figures in our caucus in a way that was open and honest and upfront. Instead, what you did was say, “I’m not interested in anything that the National Party puts forward.”, because the National Party had a number of very clear lines.

I say again that there is no party with a prouder, stronger record in the defence of the Realm than the New Zealand National Party.

Hon Aupito William Sio: Oh, say it with some conviction.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: It’s one of the reasons why I am so proud to be a member of this caucus—and the Hon Aupito William Sio may wish to call out an inane interjection, but he knows that that is correct, and, more importantly, so do people listening to this debate, because it comes down to the fact that the Minister spoke a moment ago about those who are entitled to return to our shores. That was the phrase that sticks in my memory from the Minister’s contribution: “those who are entitled to return to our shores.” Well, I hope that he was listening to the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s contribution a moment ago, and, in particular, those who are listening, watching TV or on the radio, will have listened to what was being said.

Hon Clare Curran: They’ll be disgusted with you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh, isn’t this fascinating? We now have the Hon Clare Curran telling me that to side with the Hon Gerry Brownlee in saying we don’t want this person who was so misnamed as the “Bumbling Jihadi” coming back to our country and threatening and imperilling the safety of New Zealanders—the Hon Clare Curran thinks it’s disgusting for me to say that.

Hon Clare Curran: No, I think that member is disgusting, and particularly that one there.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, I would make the point to her that—OK, so now I am disgusting. I have no idea why the Minister thinks that, other than her visceral hatred of the National Party.

But the point I am making is that New Zealanders need to be protected from people who have been radicalised overseas and who have gone to the extent, as Gerry Brownlee said, of destroying their passports after making very, very serious threats against New Zealanders, and only when they discover that the world has changed, that the security situation has changed and suddenly it is no longer convenient to be incarcerated in one of those countries, “I would like to play the card of the victim and to be portrayed as the bumbling jihadi.” Well, it is absolutely disgraceful for anybody to accept that description. That man is seriously dangerous, and he imperils the safety of this nation. The very least we should do is have legislation that protects New Zealanders against him and others of a like mind, should they ever be returned to our shores.

This legislation doesn’t cut it. This legislation is weak and ineffective. There are so many holes in it you could drive a bus through it, and, if it is enacted as a result of this very weak process, we will be worse off in our security legislation, not better off. I am desperately disappointed, having been a member of this House for 11 years, that I can’t support a security measure for, I think, the first time in my years as an MP. But I can’t, because I will not imperil the safety of New Zealanders. I will not kowtow to the very weak demands that are being made by this Government’s coalition partners. This is a seriously flawed bill. The very least that could be done is for the Government to adopt the Supplementary Order Papers that are being advanced by the Opposition to strengthen the measure. Should they do that, there may be some hope for it, but, at the moment, it is hopeless.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Simon O’Connor. Before I do, this is Part 1 we’re on.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It sure is. Not that I wish to overly affirm it. This definitely is Part 1. I sort of want to pick up on two things which do affect the purpose. Fundamentally, and we’ve heard it from all sides of the House, we want unanimity around matters of national security, and I certainly sit on that side. It’s with a certain reluctance that I do find myself opposed to this bill. There’s been a lot of talk as well of concerns about when this bill should have started, how it should have started, legislation in the past, and even how it’s been handled more recently. I’m not actually particularly interested in that, because the matter at hand is the bill itself.

The fundamental problem that we have is ultimately twofold and begins to manifest itself in Part 1 through the purposes. The first is that, by passing this legislation as it’s currently drafted and with the purposes and other elements including age—and I’ll touch on that in a moment—ultimately, it, I fear, creates a false sense of security: the sense that this will actually achieve an enhanced security arrangement for New Zealanders. In short, it doesn’t, and I hope I might be able to illustrate why that is.

So I suppose the first question to the Minister is: if this passes—and, you know, this is a democracy; it’s a simple numbers game—will there be a move to change the bill as quickly as necessary? As I say, one of my concerns is that, if it passes with these gaps, with these problems, we sort of sit back and New Zealanders sit back and think it’s all fine—we’re all good now. The problem that’s going to come is, ultimately—and it has been one of my concerns through the select committee process—the little gaps we’ve created are exactly the gaps that terrorists like to exploit.

Maybe I could put it this way to the Minister. While there’s a low probability of things going wrong in terms of those gaps—yes, we should know every person coming through. Our intelligence services do an incredible job. There’s a low probability someone’s going to turn up at the border. There’s a low probability they’re going to be under 18 years of age. However, low probabilities also come in this case with high risks. If we, as a House, as a Parliament, and, if I might respectfully say, as a Government, get this wrong, the risks are enormous—the risks are enormous. That’s what’s weighed on my shoulders.

I think one of the reasons why, from my side, we’ve got a bit of an issue around the purposes of the Act—all three are perfectly fine. The fundamental problem, I think, for this side is that clause 3(c), “to support the relevant person’s integration”—because of the arrangement with the Greens to get the necessary votes—is and has become sort of the paramount consideration.

The Green Party’s amendments—and I’ll get to one of them in Schedule 2 at the moment, because I understand it’s referenced in Part 1, puts far too many rights on the returning offender or terrorist. I do have a problem with the Green Party’s stance on a number of issues, and, when it comes to the security of the Realm and intelligence services, I have not forgotten that it is the Green Party which has long advocated for the abolition of our security services. Even through the select committee process—I suppose, if you want to be illustrative—what is put here as the purpose of the bill as incidental to the main purposes has, by the agreement with the Green Party and the changes put forward and the rejection of the National Party changes, effectively, become the main purpose. In other words, focusing on the returning terrorist’s integration, their supposed rights, and due process, as the Green’s understand it, trumps, if you will, the desire to protect the public from terrorism. That’s a problem that I have.

Look, keeping within Part 1 for now, the Minister might want it to be up to him—because I am anticipating some calls, potentially from his own side. I’ve noted they’ve made no calls so far. They have just got offended, which is very “left”. But to just touch on the designated terrorist entity element. It came up a lot in committee. We were very, very clear, and I hope the Minister might affirm this: when we talk about terrorism, it’s very specific groups that are known, acknowledged, named, and are listed under the Terrorism Suppression Act. I mention that because a number of people, including some submitters but certainly some members of committee from the governing side, sort of got a bit caught up that the definition of terrorism should be much, much wider to groups they found just offensive. It’s probably an important distinction I wouldn’t mind—

Louisa Wall: White supremacists, actually.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Actually, someone calls out “White supremacists”, and it’s quite right. But the problem we’ve got—and I need to; it’s why I’m asking the Minister. It’s not that these are not issues, but white supremacism is a broader concept; it’s not a specific group.

Whether we agree with it or not, I think it’s really important—and if the Minister wishes to discuss it—this bill deals with very particular, named groups. Going to much broader concepts, such as white nationalism, cannot be controlled by this. In fact, it leads us down a rather dangerous path. To the point that we can find groups—be they jihadists or otherwise—that we can be very specific about, that is helpful, but I think it would be useful to just draw out why it’s important to have that designated terrorist entity.

Also, the whole fact of terrorism itself—again, the definition as via the Terrorism Suppression Act. It is very, very specific, and I suppose, again, I’m just encouraging the Minister to affirm that, because this bill is not to be used, one way or the other, to try and capture a whole group of people or sets of thoughts which some people would define as terrorism. We’ve already seen in this country the attempt to shut down free speech. Again, I know the Minister is on this side in terms of the way this has been drafted, so I just want that affirmed.

Look, clause 6—the meaning of relevant person. It’s been one of the bottom lines for National. I’m imploring, encouraging, the Minister to take on board a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on the Table, I suspect, in the name of Mark Mitchell, to have that age lowered—SOP 419. Eighteen is too old—18, Minister, is too old. I touched on it very briefly in an earlier speech. We’ve had people overseas who are under 18 years of age who have been engaged in terrorist activity. We had some very good feedback from Oranga Tamariki. They believe they are capable of being able to work with these young people if they were to come back—stress “if”. We wouldn’t want—again, I suppose, in the low-probability, high-risk framework that I am underpinning this contribution with—to get that wrong. Oranga Tamariki deal with some pretty challenging young people out there, and comparisons could be made.

The second, and probably more fundamental, problem I’ve got is that for the Oranga Tamariki Act to come into being, evidence is required. They have to show that this young person, or under-18-year-old, coming back is a threat to themselves, is a threat to others, has major psychological issues, and so forth. I suppose it’s been one of my contentions, which may or may not have driven officials mad, that that evidence may not be there. In fact, this young person, while being a terrorist, may present as completely and utterly sane. I think it’s one of the great mistakes that we often make—and not everybody in this House—to think that people who are involved in jihadist or terrorist activities are lunatics. Some are, but some are not—they are incredibly rational and incredibly calm and they are following a set of beliefs, wrong as they might be, in a very consistent way. So there’s that concern that, actually, the young person will come back and with a clever lawyer they’ll be able to say, actually, the Act doesn’t apply.

So I’d like to see that changed and SOP 419 adopted to lower the age. It’s even possible that we might be able to put provisos in that, if it is a person between, say, 14 and 18 years of age, a control order applies and there’s mandatory engagement with Oranga Tamariki. It’s not that we’re going to be throwing them into prison. In fact—and this is one of the ironies, and Gerry Brownlee touched on it—there is not a clear array of what those controls are. But I implore and encourage the Minister to consider dropping the age or, at the very least, to explain to the committee why he wishes to hold to this, particularly when we look at other countries. I believe—and I’m happy to be corrected—the likes of Australia, the UK, and Canada have lower ages.

In my last minute, I just want to draw attention to the tabled amendment which is making a single word change to Schedule 2. Am I right to think, Madam Chair, that that does fit in Part 1 because it’s referenced earlier on? I don’t want to—well, correct me if I’m wrong as I carry on, but I think it does apply. Schedule 2 is referenced in Part 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, it is.

SIMON O’CONNOR: It is? Fantastic. Thank you. Long and the short: this tabled amendment is symbolic in that it’s a Green Party idea to put in the words “poses a real risk of engaging in terrorism-related activities.” It’s in “overview of decisions in making control order” in Schedule 2. The long and the short: it has been a small contention but an important one.

National feels that we should just talk about these people, these terrorists, posing a risk. The Greens, as I understand it, have become obsessed with the word “real”—that it’s a real risk. What it effectively does, in my remaining 17 seconds, is raise the threshold, raises the bar of proof that’s required. They’re not now just a risk but they have to be proven to be a real risk. Again, I’m no lawyer, and they’re cleverer than I, but they can find their ways around that. I think that does not enhance the safety of the country.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to, first of all—out of respect for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, and hope that he will show the same respect to us on this side of the House—respond to the comments that he made. His opening comment was a backhanded insult to me, intimating that my contribution was not intellectual. I’ve now listened very closely to the Minister responding to the issues that we’ve raised, and it’s flimflam.

There’s been no intellectual effort at all by the Minister in the chair to actually respond to the issues that we’ve raised. I’d ask that he would do that, and I’m going to go back to my original contribution. Before you’re in the chair, I’m going to ask some very simple questions. Number one: if we have someone—and the Hon Gerry Brownlee highlighted this, too—if we have a returning Kiwi arrive at our border that we haven’t already been notified of, which the officials and everyone said may not be likely but it could happen—when you’re dealing with national security, you make sure that you close every hole and every gap. Unlikely is not good enough. For us, it is that we’re going to make sure that we do everything we can to make sure that even the most unlikely scenario that may emerge, we’re prepared and we’re able to deal with that.

So my question is this: if we have someone arrive on our border and we weren’t notified or we become aware of their situation when they arrive, how are they going to be held? If Customs are going to help hold them, under what authority? If they can hold them for only four hours and it takes longer than that to get a control order in place, then how are the police going to be able to surveil and monitor them? Because they’ve said very clearly that they’re very concerned and worried that there will be a gap there and they won’t be able to do that. And why—why—has the Minister not listened to our police when they said that they would welcome the amendment that I spoke to him about right at the very start, in the first meeting that we had, when I said, “We have to give our agencies the ability to be able to detain someone at the border until we can ascertain exactly what their intent is, what their background is, and that gives the High Court time to get a control order in place.”?

How simple is that? That’s looking after the country’s security. I get sent here from Rodney, from my electorate—the officials do a very good job; I want to acknowledge them. They advise us. I will make my own decisions on what I think we need to do for our country and the safety of our country, all right? Because I’ve got kids in my electorate that get on the bus every day, that go to school; their parents want them to be safe. I’ve got people that go out on the weekend to a restaurant. They don’t want to be exposed to the type of attacks that we see around the world.

That’s up to us right here, right now to be vigilant, because I’ll tell you something: the minute you become complacent, Minister, the minute you say, “Oh, well, I think it’s good enough.”, you’ve handed it over to the Greens. The Greens are leading it. No one in this country trusts the Greens with our national security. They haven’t supported a bill in this House for 20 years to do with our national security, and their immediate reaction to this was to say that it was dog-whistling. You’ve had to dumb down this bill to make concessions for them because you wouldn’t work with us. It’s a disgrace.

By the way, one of the comments, Minister, that you made—and I’m going to address that now—is you said that, over on this side of the House, we’re fantasists; this is a fantasy that this could arise. You’re talking about—you’ve got two defence Ministers sat on this side of the Chamber and a Government that deployed our troops into Iraq with a serious job of disabling the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. You’ve been up there with me. The Minister has been up there with the Hon Gerry Brownlee and myself to see the work that they’ve done. They expect us to do our job. Our defence forces up there that have made a huge sacrifice and done an outstanding job that we should all be proud of as a nation expect us to do our stuff.

Do I know anything about the threat? I spent 10 years in the Middle East on the front lines dealing with the war on terrorism. I’ve worked with the Americans, the British, the Japanese, the Danes, the Australians—their defence forces, their intelligence agencies. I’ve worked with the UN. I’ve been to Somalia. I’ve been to Darfur. I didn’t see the Minister in Darfur recovering UN truck drivers taken by the Janjaweed. I haven’t seen him sat in a room getting briefings about the threats from al-Qaeda or al-Shabaab. The threats are real. Don’t for one minute think that we have a cloak of invincibility in New Zealand; we don’t.

So I’d like the Minister to stand and I’d like him to give us a considered and an intellectual response to the questions that I have raised, because they are real and they are a huge gap that you could drive not a small car through; you could drive a truck through it.

On this side of the Chamber, we are not going to accept someone coming back into our country with the ability to walk straight out into the community when we know they’ve already been involved in terror activity and we know that they are a threat to law-abiding Kiwis. I’d ask the Minister to stand and make an intellectual response to the issues that I’ve raised. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. In my contribution, I’d like to focus on the meaning of “engagement in terrorism … activities”. That’s a particular phrase used in clause 7. The significance of that in the context of our debate on Part 1 is that what we have is a number of criteria, a number of items in a checklist, any one of which needs to be satisfied in order for a terrorism-related activity to be deemed to exist by our appropriate authorities. I’ll just go through each of those, and then my intention is to link it to clause 6, which talks about the meaning of a “relevant person”.

So the first thing to note is that the definition or the checklist of potential terrorism-related activities is defined in terms of the purposes of the Act. We’ve talked about those already. So that’s the background, and so it is that we see it in clause 7(2), any of the following: “planning or other preparations to carry out the terrorism, whether it is actually carried out or not:”—and that’s a sensible way of formulating the fact that something might be planned and not yet executed but nevertheless represent a threat by the potential that is inherent in that type of planning and preparation. The next is “a credible threat to carry out the terrorism”—again—“whether it is actually carried out or not:”, and then “an attempt to carry out the terrorism:” or, of course, “the carrying out of the terrorism.” So all these different activities are relevant in the context of what we think about as terrorism.

So it is that we then look across to the meaning of “relevant person”. I would just challenge the committee to consider whether or not a person should be defined as relevant in relation to their age, as opposed to their capacity to carry out the particular activities that define terrorism, as we’ve already just heard. My submission to the committee, to the nation, and most particularly to the Minister is that if a person is capable of carrying out those particular things that we define as terrorism, then they are capable of being thought of as a terrorist for the purpose of the Act, for the provisions then to apply that they should be detained for four hours—or, we would say, longer. We would give them a three-day stay, or up to a three-day stay if that amount of time was necessary. And so, given that intention that we carry out the purpose of the Act to protect the New Zealand public from terrorism and those particular acts that constitute it, it should be that alone that is the basis for us considering what a relevant person is.

Accordingly, we shouldn’t look at clause 6(1) and see that the relevant person is, first of all, a person who is 18 years old or older, who may be coming to New Zealand, and so forth. The age of the person is irrelevant in the context of their ability to carry out the acts we are talking about. Now, I appreciate that it might be that it’s less likely that someone who is very young will carry out a credible threat, but that much is already contained. That’s inherent in the definition of the fact that it must be a credible threat to carry out the terrorism.

So that aspect that we would say, “Well, it would be absurd to say, for example, that a five-year-old should be subject to the Act, because a five-year-old is not going to have a credible threat.”—well, that’s fine, because they’re not going to meet the definition of a terrorist activity or terrorism-related activity by the black and white letter of the law as we see later in the Act.

It might be, as well, that the Minister would consider an amendment to the Act that says, “Well, instead of having a brightline cut off on one’s 18th birthday, it might be that prior to that a person would still be applicable to the Act, but for their age to be taken into account in the way that the Act is administered.”

I’m not certain that I feel that that would necessarily be the strongest or most robust way of handling the matter, but I would say that at least it would take into account the fact that a person is young and that the justice system does recognise such a thing as a youth offender or some other description of a person who is not yet 18. So, by doing that, we wouldn’t exclude them from the whole jurisdiction of the Act, but we could say that their age is somehow irrelevant still in the way that they’re treated, but they’re not excluded entirely by that.

That’s really the point that I wanted to make. With it goes the related question, really, of whether the Minister would contemplate an amendment, whether it’s a Supplementary Order Paper that’s already been tabled or something along similar lines, that allows those who are younger than 18 but nevertheless can carry out a credible threat to be treated at least in some way under this law.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to speak quickly to two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), 418 and 419, that are in my name. I would like to make another appeal to the Minister: it’s never too late to be able to sit down, talk about, and make changes to this bill so that we can all be satisfied it’s strong enough to put the protection in place that we need as a nation.

These SOPs relate to age. My colleague Chris Penk just made a very good contribution on this. The reality of this is that all these Supplementary Order Papers are doing is bringing us in line with Australia and the UK. Australia had to go back and change their legislation because they had a threat from a 15-year-old and they realised that their legislation wouldn’t capture that eventuality. The sad reality, and it is very sad, is that 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds can be radicalised. They can actually go with their families overseas and be put into that environment—an environment like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—and they can be radicalised. Unfortunately, they are a danger and they are dangerous and they do present a danger. We see that, sadly, in New Zealand with actual crime, serious assaults, robberies, and even murders committed by juveniles, 14 through to 17 years old. We know that they do have, sadly, the capacity to kill.

So, something short on SOP 419, this provision would be for a control order for a 14-year-old to be for “up to 6 months, up until the age of 18, where the 2-year duration would take effect. Lowering the age to 14 would align the Bill with the Australian legislation. Australia introduced control order legislation for 16-year-olds and over, but in 2016 reduced the age threshold to 14 due to a case of a 15-year-old being radicalised.”, which I mentioned.

So I would appeal to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little. I have appealed to New Zealand First on this and in particular the defence Minister, the Hon Ron Mark, because I honestly felt that, although we disagree on a lot of things, his service overseas, in particular in his own service in our defence force, actually gave him an insight into the types of threats that do exist and are real and that we do face.

I’m disappointed, because I know that he is handling this bill for New Zealand First, that he’s made no major contribution other than a brief 30-second contribution yesterday. I know that he feels he’s a great entrepreneur, but I can tell you that he’s currently our defence Minister. Our New Zealand Defence Force have made a huge sacrifice for us in their deployment to Camp Taji in Iraq. I want to acknowledge them and the outstanding work that they’ve done and the major contribution they’ve made in the dismantling and defeat of ISIS and the caliphates in both Iraq and Syria. They are watching. They understand. They know what the threat is. They know how they think. They know how they operate. Speak to any of our returning New Zealand Defence Force personnel that’ve been up there. They will tell you that there is a genuine threat and that we’re not immune to it. Their expectation is that we put proper legislation in place. I would expect the defence Minister to be supportive of the changes that we want to make to make this bill stronger.

Just very quickly on Supplementary Order Paper 418, “This Supplementary Order Paper amends the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill by amending clause 6 to ensure control orders will capture those convicted of a terrorist offence in New Zealand.” This, again, directly related to what the Australians and British have experienced. “The Bill as introduced does not consider those convicted of a terrorism-related offence in New Zealand as a relevant person to which a control order will apply.” We disagree. We think that this bill should be able to respond to an internal threat.

The amendment will include: “a relevant person on whom a control order is to be imposed is a person who has been convicted in New Zealand of an offence relating to a terrorist act. This amendment would make the legislation align with the Australian version. The Government has assured the Opposition that a similar change is coming with a second tranche of anti-terrorism laws; however, we believe this cannot wait,”. There’s an opportunity now. The Minister alluded to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and the changes that he wants to make. There’s a chance right now with his own bill that’s in this committee to make that change.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. Resuming on clause 7 of this, Part 1, I just wanted to make a couple of comments before I complete my contributions on this part in relation to what’s described as facilitating or supporting terrorism. The reason this is relevant—or the context, if you will—is that a person engages in terrorism-related activities if they do, among other things, facilitate or support the carrying out of terrorism. It’s helpful, I think, that the bill talks about terrorism being facilitated or supported only if that person knows or ought reasonably to know that terrorism is facilitated or supported. So this is useful to have constructive knowledge as part of the requirement.

That’s helpful from an evidential point of view. It might be that it’s difficult for the New Zealand authorities to prove that a person actually did know that they were facilitating or supporting, but if it’s possible to say that they should have known, presumably given the circumstances and presumably given their level of intellect—maybe competence, as we might say in the law, maybe involvement with terror-related groups—if it’s the case that we can say with some certainty that someone ought to have known that they were, effectively, supporting or facilitating terrorism, then that’s enough under the bill. I think that’s a worthwhile thing for the bill to do in setting a threshold whereby we can draw a line and say that these activities are proscribed by the Act and therefore the provisions to protect New Zealanders apply at that point.

In the same clause, we see that it’s not necessary, however, that specific terrorism needs to be known about by the person who’s said to be a facilitator or supporter. I presume that this means something along the lines of: if a person is a member of an organisation that’s known to carry out terror activities, then notwithstanding that they don’t know or may not have known that a particular terrorist attack would take place at a particular time, in a particular way, none the less they will be caught by the provisions of this Act. So, again, I think that’s a helpful thing. If the Minister’s got any comment to make about the way that I’m interpretating that—excuse me, interpreting that, as to whether I’m correct or incorrect—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

CHRIS PENK: —I can see that my interpretation of the word “interpret” is incorrect and that’s caused some amusement across the Chamber—then I’ll be happy to take feedback on any of those aspects.

Just to turn to clause 8 reasonably briefly and perhaps unexpectedly, we’ve got a provision there entitled “Status of examples”. It might seem an unusually technical provision for me to focus on, even if not atypical for me to focus on a technical example, but what we’ve got there is not merely an exercise in statutory interpretation where we’re saying an example used in the Act doesn’t limit the provision. That’s actually a significant thing because what it tells us is that we’re concerned with a piece of legislation that does give examples. It does contemplate specific types of situations, but the fact that a provision will apply, regardless of whether it doesn’t seem to be consistent with the examples given or not, really indicates the nature of what we are concerned with here, which is that terrorism has no particular shape that is fixed in time.

“Terrorism” is, broadly speaking, an act, I suppose, of political violence, if you’ll excuse the definition somewhat on the run—

Hon Tim Macindoe: That’s a fair interpretation.

CHRIS PENK: —and it’s not in accordance with the Act. It’s a fair interpretation, I hear across the House, thank you—well, from my side of the House, indeed, the Hon Tim Macindoe; I’m no less an authority on language and law than the shadow Attorney-General. It shows that what we’re concerned with here—and this is relevant to the way that we want the law to operate—is we don’t always know what terrorism looks like, and its methods can be unexpected.

It’s a classic case of—and this goes, again, to the way that it’s interpreted and the mechanics of the thing; the unlikelihood or the likelihood or the certainty of it needing to be applied when someone comes into the country—sometimes we know what we don’t know but sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know. We know now that the things that we don’t know will be known to us only when we do know them. So for that reason we need to be somewhat humble when we contemplate our ability as lawmakers to contemplate all the different situations that might arise, all the examples, and we shouldn’t limit ourselves in making provisions that will apply in any situation whatsoever for the protection of New Zealanders.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): One of the interesting things that came up during the discussions in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—particularly as the select committee’s report was being put together—was the strong suggestion from the Greens that the reason why they had insisted on the dilution of this bill to the almost nullity that it is now was because they did not want to see another situation arise like that endured by Ahmed Zaoui some years ago.

Now, many people will not know that name; there will be others who do recall that name. So he was a gentleman who came to New Zealand in the early 2000s and was detained because he did have Algerian Government convictions against him for engaging in terrorist activities, for being part of what was designated by them as a terrorist organisation. He had previously been an imam and he had stood for election in Algeria with a party that was known to be a fundamentalist Islamic group—very, very fundamentalist. Now, he, eventually, after the civil war started in Algeria, fled the country to Europe. That’s from where he made his way to New Zealand—

Hon Mark Mitchell: On a fake passport.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Now, he did come in on a fake passport, and he was detained here. It was a Labour Government in office at the time, and he was detained for quite a long number of years. Eventually, the New Zealand security service decided that perhaps the case they had against him was not as robust as it should be, and their objection to his being granted refugee status was removed. Eventually—interestingly—under a National Government, he got citizenship, and today he does live in New Zealand and is, for all intents and purposes, a law-abiding citizen.

But that circumstance was quite unique; it was one person. While there was no eventual proof that he was a terrorist threat to New Zealand, there was a discernible history that caused the caution and for the authorities, under a Labour Governmental, to arrest him and imprison him for quite a long period of time.

So it seems ridiculous that we have a Labour-led Government now, who have New Zealand First—the party that counts themselves as being a strong law and order party; mind you, they touted themselves as being the farmers’ friend, that didn’t last very long—also agreeing with this odd position being taken by the Green Party. I think the real point here is that all we would want to see is a bill that dots the i’s and crosses the t’s and a bill that is not seen to give the benefit of the doubt to someone turning up at our borders, for whom there is at least some known proof that they have been part of a terrorist organisation, that they have been associated with terrorists, or that they have facilitated or supported terrorist activity. This bill simply is not strong enough.

Louisa Wall: This would allow us to restrict Mark Taylor’s movements.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The whole of the situation around Mr Zaoui took years to resolve, but was it a lack of caution? Was Helen Clark’s Government wrong to detain him? Now, Louisa Wall would now say, “Yes they were, we made a dreadful mistake, and so we shouldn’t have done that, so now for anyone else that comes, we’re going to give them the benefit of the doubt.” More benefit of doubt than for deported New Zealanders from Australia—unbelievable.

Louisa Wall: Clause 14—interim control order.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I would invite the member who’s calling out with almost unintelligible commentary to take a call. Stand up and defend the Government’s position. There’s no defence—there’s no defence. All we’re getting is a constant sort of emotional response to the fact that the National Party hasn’t done what it’s told, and that’s the problem here.

You can clearly see that there are weaknesses and deficiencies that should be strengthened, and no discussion on those, just a sort of cursory, saying, “Oh, well, we’ll make one or two little changes.”, but nothing substantial, and we still end up with the weak bill. We are not going to support it.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 6 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 419 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 6 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Control orders

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Colleagues, that brings us to Part 2, debate on clauses 11 to 34, and I say to the Hon Mark Mitchell that that’s where his questions to the Minister properly lie. I call the honourable—

Hon Andrew Little: Andrew Little.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Andrew Little.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It’s late in the year, Madam Chair. We all understand that. This, Part 2, is the operative part and the critical part of the bill. It is the one that gives the court the power to make a control order on the application of the Commissioner of Police, and it is the Commissioner of Police who makes the application. One of the checks and balances on all this is that it is a High Court judge that issues the order. So the judge will look at all the evidence, the evidence of the risk that a particular person poses, the relevant person as defined in the Act, and that applies also the age restriction.

I know members, admittedly in the previous part, raised questions about the age, and I’ll repeat what I’ve said to some members in my office and in other conversations and here in the House as well: we know we can count, really, on the fingers of one hand the people whom this will apply to immediately, bearing in mind that this piece of legislation is for an immediate purpose, during the course of a thorough review of the entire Terrorism Suppression Act and on which this House can expect more significant changes in the future. But right now, we know the risk that is being posed. We know the people who are most likely to be affected by this legislation if they try to cross the border, and none of them are anywhere near the age of 18. At least, those who are under 18 are nowhere near the age of it; for those who are over the age of 18, of course, the legislation will apply. So I don’t think we need to trouble ourselves too much about that.

Then, clause 12 sets out the requirement to say whether it is an interim control order or a final control order. The significance there is that the whole scheme of this bill is that because we know who this is most likely going to apply to—and even if they’re not people we know now, they’re people whom we are likely to know of in advance of their coming back; in advance of their crossing the border. So this allows for the Commissioner of Police to make or to seek an order before the person is even in the country—before they return, before they cross the border. So the ability for the police to get ahead of that, make an order, persuade the judge, say that the safety of the community requires a number of constraints on this particular person—that is there.

Then, as soon as the person crosses the border, they are served with the order. The order applies immediately. They’re then given advice about how they can review it and are given access to legal aid for all that as well. All of that is in here. Then, if there is a review of it and there is then a change to it or there is an order, that becomes a final order. That approach achieves, I think, or strikes, a very important balance, knowing that this is placing constraints on the liberty of a person who won’t have been convicted of any crime, who is under suspicion, including very good suspicion, of committing terrorist acts abroad, as that is defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act, and who therefore poses a risk to the community. This strikes the right balance.

New Zealanders want to know they are safe, but they don’t want to live in a totalitarian country. They do want to know that there are appropriate safeguards, and this bill strikes the right balance in terms of those safeguards. Clause 16 sets out the range of requirements that may be imposed, and there’s a reasonably extensive list of them. They are things about constraining someone’s liberty. And I know members were somewhat cynical about anything that is about trying to rehabilitate, but if you look at international best practice—and I think of even countries like Indonesia; if you want to know a country that is seriously grappling with terrorism, both domestically and returning foreign terrorist fighters, Indonesia is not a bad place to start. What is critical to their programme of dealing with returning foreign terrorist fighters is that there is deradicalisation, there is rehabilitation, and there is reintegration—otherwise there wouldn’t be any point in having this.

The members opposite no doubt would just like to clap them in prison and with no safeguards at all. Well, actually, in a country that subscribes to the rule of law and the conventions and values that we do, we have to strike a balance between dealing with somebody who clearly poses a risk because of previous behaviour and actually upholding our basic values too. Yes, we want to put some constraints on it. We want to limit what they can do, where they can go, even to whom they can talk, but we want to give them a chance to rehabilitate and reintegrate. It’s pretty clear that if that isn’t achieved, if that’s not possible, then there are measures that can continue to be taken, and that is that the orders can continue to be applied for a period of up to six years. Any breach of the order during that time is a criminal offence and will be subject and dealt with criminally, and then, of course, the person affected by the order goes into a different regime. All of those things are accounted for and provided for in the bill, and that is as it should be.

There is provision for the service of the control order, and this takes account of the fact that the person whom it is about is unlikely to be in the country. If it is an order that applies to somebody who is in the country, then there is a process that covers that off as well. But I think we have to, in the circumstances in which this bill has been conceived, understand that both our intelligence and security agencies, and the police with their intelligence capabilities as well—we are right across the risks and the threats that are posed to New Zealand, and this bill allows us to deal with that.

Until this bill turned up, we had no means of doing this. We knew that returning foreign terrorist fighters was a problem but had no means of dealing with it. So now we will have a means to deal with it, and that is why all members of the House should support it, because it gives our police, our authorities, the tools to deal with a rising threat that previously our legislation didn’t allow to provide for—and no one had done anything about it. No one had done anything about it until now. It was the right thing to do, and it is the right thing to do in this.

Clause 21 provides for the information that has to be served with a control order. That also means that the person is advised on how they can challenge it or seek a review of it and how they can get access to assistance and advice to do that. Clause 22 allows the court to authorise entry to a place to serve the control order on a person who was affected by it. So the rest of the provisions there in this part deal with the mechanical aspects of that to make sure that all elements are covered off.

This is about a regime that deals with people who we cannot capture under our criminal justice system. And I know—and although it’s been disposed of—there was a provision that suggested it should apply to those who have committed a crime in New Zealand. People who commit a crime in New Zealand are already taken care of in our criminal justice system. This is to deal with people who have not been and cannot be processed under our criminal justice system, and provides a mechanism, a civil mechanism, that still allows us to place constraints on them, to put restrictions on them, so that they can change, be rehabilitated, but at the very least be kept safe from other people. That is the least we should do, and that is what we are doing, and that’s what this bill provides for.

These provisions are very important, and they all hang together. They all add up to greater safety, greater safety for the community, security around a person who poses a risk, but actually a meaningful opportunity to deal with that person in a way that means that they can be reintegrated safely into the community. We do that already. We don’t talk about it a lot, but there are people in communities who, with the benefit and the assistance and support of those communities, are undergoing deradicalisation.

Other countries are doing it because you have to do it; there’s no point in allowing people to float around with the kinds of anti-social, antithetical, dangerous ideas that some do without having a means and a mechanism to provide assistance and support to reintegrate and rehabilitate back into the community. That is just as much a part of anything as it is about the constraining measures that are about keeping people safe.

So I have explained the general purport of this part of the bill. I look forward to other members’ contributions.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Has the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, just told us that there have been radicalised New Zealanders returning to this country after being away in some circumstance and have now been quietly pushed into the community with the agreement of some communities around New Zealand? Because I haven’t heard this; this was new today—right now.

Hon Andrew Little: No. The member’s making that up.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I’m just quoting what the member said. I’m asking the Minister to clarify, because the whole speech sounded to me very much like he was saying that, although we know these people are criminals, because they haven’t committed their crimes in New Zealand, we are going to have a law here that ensures that the New Zealand taxpayer makes a fair effort and goes to a reasonable cost to rehabilitate them. Well, I don’t think that’s a reasonable position at all. I don’t understand how anyone can be comfortable with that, particularly when the conditions that are put out under clause 16 here, where the examples of requirements that might be put into a control order are listed, are somewhat caveated all the way through by the relevant person—that should read “criminal terrorist”—agreeing to some of these things and having the full capacity to do so.

Particularly we look at clause 16(p), which says, “ require that the relevant person, if they have given and not withdrawn their informed consent to do so, engage with specified rehabilitative services (for example, alcohol and drug treatment services).” What does that mean? That if the person who is subject to a control order doesn’t give their consent to seek treatment for their condition—most likely it’ll be a psychological condition; most likely it will be something that needs to be washed out of their brains because they have been radicalised—if they don’t consent, then apparently it doesn’t stand. And it’s backed up in clause 19, where it says, “Limit on requiring relevant person”—the criminal terrorist—“to engage with specific rehabilitative services (1) No relevant person”—read that as “criminal terrorist”—“may be made, or may remain, subject to a requirement of the kind stated in section 16(p) unless the relevant person—(a) has been fully advised, by a person who is qualified to prescribe or provide the specified rehabilitative services, about their nature and their intended and likely effects and any known risks of engaging with them; and (b) is competent to make an informed choice and give informed consent to engaging with them”.

So they have to give, stated in two places, informed consent to the condition that’s applied by the courts. Now, if anyone was wondering whether or not this was a weak bill, this has to be the absolute convincing point. So the criminal terrorist turns up here; in four hours, there’s a control order put on them, and one of those control orders states that they’ve got to go through some sort of, what would you say, deradicalisation process—apparently that’s happening informally in the community at the moment; something new we learned tonight—and they can’t give their informed consent, then that’s it. What sort of a protection is that for the New Zealand public? And as for the time it’s taken for this bill to get here, let’s be very clear: the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was in full swing up until about 18 months ago, when there was such an activity in the fight against them that they began to collapse. They began to run and they began to scatter. They began to hide themselves in refugee camps, and they began to do what Mark Taylor has done: present themselves as being victims of some horrible regime that they never really wanted to be a part of. But we know full well that, if it hadn’t been for their defeat, they would have been out there today still participating in those sorts of terrorist activities.

So there was a necessity, certainly, to make sure that New Zealand’s borders were protected, but this Minister has been in office for two years. Two years and it’s suddenly dropped in the House under urgency, rushed through a select committee process, and put in front of us. I’d like to know: is that Minister in receipt of information that suggests that there are people waiting at the borders right now to come on in? Can he answer that question? Why is it that someone who has a control order on them has to give their informed consent to its effect?

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I might pick up, actually, on the informed consent element that the Hon Gerry Brownlee just touched on. The potential nature of these New Zealand terrorists returning is that either they will be of such—well, I referenced it in Part 1: that they may not present, actually, as psychopathically or sociopathically wrong. They may be smart enough to, if you will, not give their informed consent, or you are going to be dealing with people who are so damaged, not just because of their fundamentalist viewpoints but actually a psychologist or a psychiatrist will be able to say that they cannot present their informed consent—and that leads to a whole series of problems out of clause 16 where, actually, those conditions which have to be imposed with the informed consent of the terrorist doesn’t fly. It’d be good to have that commented on, but it’s just another illustration of the potential weaknesses.

I return to that theme of these things which are low probability—and the Minister has raised that there is a low probability, say, of young people coming back—but I repeat again: while it’s low probability, the risks are incredibly high. It’s been one of the great debates, right through the select committee, of making sure that we understand that we are dealing with a very different group of people here. This is not the person who steals your bike or breaks into your home; this is a person who is more than willing to absolutely destroy you because they don’t believe in any of the values that we hold dear. I suppose that’s been one of the fundamental points when we’re dealing particularly with the Greens and those left aligned: they don’t hold our values in any way, shape, or form. The idea that we could sit down and have a cup of tea and talk about the wonderful, progressive values in being a modern, diverse society—they will laugh and then cut your head off and then continue drinking the cup of tea and think that they are right. We’re dealing with a very different class of people here.

I want to try and focus, depending on my time, on the question of the renewal—so that’s clause 25—and I want to draw attention to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 424, which is, basically, saying that we need to scrap that clause. New Zealand will be in a very strange situation if this bill passes: that these control orders will only apply for a maximum of six years. And, predictably enough that I’ve put forward this SOP, I’m indicating that we need to not limit the amount of time. If you want to take it on a positive step, it’s infinitely possible that someone returning to this country is a committed, zealous jihadist, transforms themselves in two years—and we’ll just use that for the sake of example—and can go back out into the community and the control order lapses. We all say, “Hooray!” and we live happily ever after. But it’s equally as logical that, after six years, a person has not changed, and I reject the Minister’s assertion at the start that this side of the House does not believe in rehabilitation. That is certainly not the case. I certainly hold that we want to do all we can. If we have to have these people back, I certainly want them to be well controlled and well monitored, but I do want to see them helped, to try and change them.

But I’m not naive enough to think that we will be able to change everyone, and I would like to see that this House enables this piece of legislation, by adopting SOP 424, that the control orders can continue. They’re not an infinite control order; this is not as if you are a terrorist and you return home and we’re going to slap the control order on you until you’re 105, and therefore it’s there year after year, decade after decade. It’s that, let’s say, every two years the court relooks at it and continues to apply the control order if required. That’s what other countries do, and I think it is prudent. As I say, I think there is a naivety if we think that, in six years, this is all done.

There’s been a lot of focus on the whole topic of rehabilitation, de-escalation, deradicalisation to reintegrate people into society—all good and noble things—but, actually, it doesn’t matter if we’re thinking of drugs, alcohol, or terrorism, we don’t always succeed. I’ve worked with people over many years with sort of the simpler addictions, if you will—other than the addiction of terrorism. You can do all the best of work with the best of intentions over many, many years; some change, and good for them, but many don’t.

And so, to illustrate the point, if I might, that while it’s a great intention of, I suspect again, the Green Party pulling the strings somewhat, that we’ll have these rehabilitation programmes, and I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee makes a good point that it’ll be on the taxpayers’ pocket, it may not succeed. Now, some people might say, “Well, that’s just being academic, Simon. You’re just theorising here. Of course, you know, after six wonderful years, we’ll be able to deradicalise these people. We’ll work with them. We’ll put them within their family.” They just say, “Look, you’re just being academic as you are always, Simon. You know, after six years, we’ll have sorted it out. We’ll put them out with their whānau and the wider community and it’ll be all sorted.”

Well, two weeks ago in London, a known jihadist who had been on the watch list—in fact, had been arrested over six years ago in the UK—went into Fishmongers’ Hall in London City and knifed to death two UK citizens. He then proceeded on to London Bridge with the absolute intent, from what we can see, to kill more people. He was only stopped by the bravery of those around him. So why I mentioned that is that he is a classic case—granted that of the UK, but we are not that different from the UK. He was a person who was a known terrorist, a known jihadist. As I understand things, he had been arrested, convicted, put through these rehabilitation programmes. He’d been taught how to be deradicalised. It was all tickety-boo and, to the extent that I can comment, was no longer being properly watched. It seemed that, after six years, this had all been solved. And if you extrapolate that to New Zealand, after six years of a control order it’s all now fine. As I say, six years and—it’s not serendipity, it’s the opposite of that—a terrible set of coincidences, after six years, this man, a known terrorist, went out and killed two people. I know it’s an emotional example. I know it can always be seen as playing politics. But, for me, it’s really just a simple but very real example coming out of a very similar country to New Zealand.

So I implore the Minister to consider Supplementary Order Paper 424. It’s one of my more simple SOPs. It just destroys the good work that the Parliamentary Counsel Office and others have done by removing an entire clause with one swipe. But, basically, if we just get rid of the renewal section, then the control orders can continue to be applied. Minister, I urge you to consider this. Obviously, it’s your call, but obviously I ask you to speak to why you, the Minister, believe that six years is just going to magically sort things, because, at the moment, if that person hasn’t fully gone through and been deradicalised, after six years the control orders lapse. That’s a problem and I don’t think we should presume that, in those six years, if someone is not deradicalised, they’ve gone ahead and created some problem themselves; that they’ve, in other words, gone and created some domestic crime which means we can hold them.

So I would just ask that the committee reflect on that recent, very real example out of the UK. A man, a known terrorist, a known jihadist was supposedly deradicalised after six years and goes out and kills innocent people—sadly and paradoxically—working on how to actually reintegrate people into the system. So it’s something that we need to look very, very seriously at.

And again, I just implore—and I’ll begin to wrap up here—that the Minister and the committee in general actually consider just removing clause 25. Let’s just delete it in its entirety and allow that these control orders can continue—well, continue as long as needed. As I stress, they don’t have to apply for ever. They don’t have to apply for six years. They could apply for less if for some remarkable reason a person is changed. But I don’t think, if we’re going to argue a rehabilitative mind-set—and it’s just the logic of humanity: if we can rehabilitate a person, it goes without saying, Minister, that there are those that we cannot. And I think if we’re going to pass this law in good and right proper order for the safety of the realm, then we should really consider SOP 424. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Little, I’m going to address some of your opening comments and I would ask you to take a call in response to them. They are important.

The first one is around the fact that your opening comment was that, in your briefings and the information that you have, you clearly understand who the individuals are and where the threat lies. And I accept you on your word on that. I believe that, when we were in Government, we were seeing the same briefings. But you’re operating on this premise that that is the only threat, that we absolutely, 100 percent without any doubt know how many people are overseas, how many Kiwis are overseas, how many have engaged in some sort of terror activity, and when they’re likely to come back. And I can tell you absolutely, categorically, there is not one intelligence agency in this world, there is not one country in this world that can say that they know categorically who the people are—the individuals, the threat that they pose.

Chris Penk made a very good point and it’s salient. He said—and this is the stuff that catches Governments out all the time: it’s what you don’t know. It’s what you don’t know. When we are talking about something as serious as our national security and public safety, then we should be doing everything that we can to pass legislation in this House that deals with the stuff that we don’t know. And you, Minister, are operating completely on the premise that you believe that you know, categorically—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Mark Mitchell, I know the Speaker made the Mark Mitchell ruling to be more lenient on the use of “you”, but just pull back from it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Fair enough. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the Minister has stood in this House and very clearly stated that he knows without any doubt who the individuals are, who the people are, and what the threat is. So I’d ask him to stand in this Chamber again and tell me that I’m wrong.

Clayton Mitchell: You’re wrong.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So who was that?

Hon Member: That was Clayton Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, Clayton Mitchell from New Zealand First—Clayton Mitchell from New Zealand First, a guy that purports to be part of a party that stands up for law and order, for justice issues, and national security. Stand up and take a call, Clayton Mitchell. Stand up and take a call. Actually, have you read the bill?

Clayton Mitchell: Yeah, I have.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Have you read our Supplementary Order Papers? I’ll tell you what, you should be embarrassed that you are part of a party that’s standing and voting for a bill that’s been led by the Green Party. I can tell you right now: go out to one of your supporters, one of your New Zealand—there’s not many now. There’s not many, I admit that; they’re gone. But go out, try and find one of your supporters, and say, “Do you trust the Green Party with our national security?” They’ll laugh at you. They’ll laugh at you. And that’s why your numbers will continue to go down.

So I come back to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, and I’m asking you, Minister, to stand and take a call and respond to this question as well. If the Commissioner of Police knows that someone is coming back—[Minister in chair changes] Well, that’s a shame. I don’t have much faith in this Minister in the chair, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway. His decision making has already been shown to be very poor around our national security. But I’d ask him anyway.

Hon Member: Lets fighters in.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: He does, but I’d ask him anyway. How is the Commissioner of Police going to ask for a control order to be issued by the High Court of New Zealand when someone arrives at our border that we weren’t aware was actually going to arrive until they get to the border? I just want the Minister to stand and tell the committee how the process is going to work as outlined in this paper in Part 2. How is the commissioner going to be able to inform the High Court so the High Court can get a control order in place to be able to pick up someone that arrives at our border when we weren’t aware or notified of them?

And that happens. That happens around the world all the time. Are we immune to that? Do we have this cloak of invincibility? No, we don’t. And it could happen to us and we should be making sure that we put in legislation through this House that can deal with it. So if the Minister could stand and take a call and explain to this committee how we’re going to pick that person up and how the High Court is going to have time to get a control order in place so they don’t walk straight out of that airport and straight into an unsuspecting population and community here at home in New Zealand. The police have been very clear. They’ve said to this Government the amendment that we put up to allow them to detain at the border—the message to this Government was that would be a welcome tool for them to be able to keep New Zealanders safe. Please take a call, Minister.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I do want to support the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Simon O’Connor where he’s suggesting that six years as an absolute limit on control orders is a bit of a nonsense. There should be much greater discretion; it might be that it has to last for longer, and, obviously, the provisions here would mean it can last for a lesser period of time. But let’s say you’ve got someone who regularly breaches the conditions—not necessarily to a level where it can be proved that they’re engaging in criminal activity, but they might, for example, be associating inappropriately with others who’ve got a history of similar intention. Now, that would not be a criminal thing; it would simply be a breach of the control order. So they would be taken to court and they’d be subject to a fine of up to $2,000. Now, if it’s really serious—and we know how the courts work in New Zealand, we know what sort of direction they’d be looking at from the current Minister, they’re most unlikely to impose anything like that because they’ll say, “Well, the person involved probably can’t afford it.” So they certainly won’t look at the “up to one year” that they could put them in prison.

But it’s possible that someone breaches their control orders throughout those six years, organising some opportunity for a point beyond that time, and then, at the end of the six years, that’s it—they’re free, they’re clear, they can do what they like. But, of course, that is a preposterous situation, the Government will tell us, because, actually, all of the conditions under clause 16 in this bill allow massive freedom for the person who is subject to the control order.

Let’s look at just two of them—clause 16(h): “prohibit or restrict the relevant person from holding accounts, possessing certain financial instruments, or using specified financial services.” Now, that would seem reasonable. That means that this person cannot amass funds in New Zealand for the purposes of carrying out terrorist activity; perfectly reasonable. That’s something that most people would accept is not an unreasonable condition on a control order, until we step back in the bill to clause 11(3) and we see what the court has to think about when it’s imposing conditions in a control order. It is made very clear under clause 11(3)(a): “Consider how requirements [or a requirement], if imposed, will or may affect the person’s personal circumstances, for example, financial position, health, and privacy.” And that means that it’s almost impossible, in a country like New Zealand, where we do so much electronically and there is so little cash now in circulation, for a person to be denied the right to hold a bank account. Unless there is some sort of heavy surveillance over that bank account, no one will know whether it’s multiplied into others and what funds might flow through it and where they might be funnelled to, because to do that, of course, would also, under clause 11(3)(a), be a breach of privacy, which the courts cannot order. So that provision in clause 16 is rubbish. It is as much rubbish as the one I spoke about a few minutes ago.

Then we come to 16(j): “Require the relevant person to reside at a specified address agreed between the relevant person”—remember, relevant person is a criminal terrorist; agreeing with the judge, “Oh well, I’ll go and stay there, all right”—“and the Police.” The Police get to be involved as well; equal partners—the judge, the criminal terrorist, and the Police, all treated equally in this discussion. They work out where this person is going to reside for the next few years or however long it might be, and then they will say, “Well, that’s reasonable. We want to know where that person is.” Except that we then come to clause 17 in the bill, which says, “No requirement of the kind stated in section 16(j)”—so why was it even stated in the first place?—“can require the relevant person”—the criminal terrorist—“to remain at a specified address for more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period.” They can be a complete nomad, a total nomad, to go where they like in any 12 hours inside any 24 hours, and they can have a bank account, even though the court has made orders that affect both of those freedoms.

So the question we have got is: why? Why does the Government continue to insist that this is a strong bill that will deter these people from terrorist activity?

PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. My contribution this evening is in support of the eight Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that the National Party proposes on the basis that the safety of New Zealanders is paramount to National and that we undertake our national security obligations very seriously. I would like to comment, also, on the debates that have been happening tonight, in that I see that both sides are seriously concerned about making sure that no terrorist activity again happens in New Zealand, and that is why the passions are high on both sides. We are all wanting to achieve the same level of protection for all New Zealanders, and that is why we have proposed these SOPs that only seek to strengthen the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill.

To me, it seems unfortunate that there has been a blanket voting down of these SOPs, 418 and 419, referring to the age of potential terrorists coming into New Zealand as being youthful, which is globally supported by evidence in many countries, already, that this is happening. We are living in an increasingly complex security environment. It is vital that our legislation be effective and fit for purpose. So, again, pointing out that the SOPs are meant to do this, to make it more effective, to make it more fit for purpose; there is simply no leeway for experimentation and getting it wrong. In particular, I speak about SOP 424 as it relates to SOP 423—which is in my name—as we seek to amend clause 24 of the bill. SOP 423 proposes to require that the registrar of the High Court give notice to the Police Commissioner of all expiring final control orders that are about to expire, and that the notice must be given by the registrar to the Police at least two months before the date when that final control order is to expire.

The object is, quite clearly, just to ensure that a new application can be made and that there is sufficient time for an order to be issued. This is actually very similar to what the Hon Mark Mitchell was referring to, in that when a person arrives and we are not aware that he is a terrorist or that he is not on our record as a terrorist, there is insufficient time for the courts to be able to issue a control order, even given a minimum of four hours to be able to do so once the control orders are applied for.

So this is a similar situation where a control order is coming to its expiration date and there is a need to ensure that there is ample time to apply for a new one. It does not mean that the control order will be renewed. It still needs to be justified and considered necessary.

We simply do not wish to place New Zealanders at risk, and I think this is a common goal for everyone. I ask members to think through towards strengthening this legislation and voting for these SOPs 423 and 424. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Going further through clause 16, which is the conditions that might be applied in a control order, one of those might be to require the person, as I said earlier, to undergo some kind of rehabilitative programme. The Minister spoke extensively about this. He’d assumed that the courts, upon understanding what the Government’s intentions are, would be inclined to suggest to a person by putting it in a control order—and I say that because it’s a nice bill and it’s really voluntary on the part of the criminal terrorist as to whether they are part of this or not, and that’s quite clear as we’ve gone through this.

If they say to them, “Look, you must undertake some kind of rehabilitative process. You might need to go through a deradicalisation programme. You need psychological treatment to straighten yourself up and to understand what it’s like to live in a free country where people can have free thought, but not to a point that their ideology starts to threaten the safety and security of others in the country.”, yes, they will be required to do that. But what if they just say, “No, I’m not going to do it.”? Well, what happens then?

I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, to stand up and tell us what happens then, because what I can see here is that, under clause 31, there would be a potential breach of the control order and that could mean that the person is subject to up to a $2,000 fine or a one-year imprisonment. We know that no court would ever go that far—they don’t; they’re all soft, except when it comes to dealing with people they think can afford these things—and then, when we go further into this, we find that there is actually a provision in here that says that if someone chooses not to participate in that way, then they are not in breach, as they would be as stated under clause 31. They’re not subject to it. So, effectively, there is no requirement on them to participate in that anti-radicalisation service, or if it’s drugs or alcohol, or some other such that the courts have ordered, it’s very clear that if they decide that they’re not going to participate in that, it is not a breach of the control order. Now, how is this in any way in line with the concept of rehabilitation?

It just adds to the general duplicity of all the statements coming from the Government parties about what this bill can achieve. We’ve seen that there is no prohibition of any great meaningful impost on the criminal terrorist with regards to movement around the country. We’ve seen that there is no way that any court is going to take away their right to engage in financial transactions in New Zealand. It’s specified in here that they’ve got to think about what that would mean for their lives. If they suddenly said, “Well, that would mean you’d have to go to Uncle Somebody to get your pocket money.”, well, that also would be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which, of course, is specifically a requirement for the courts to consider when it comes to these people. Now, we find that if they are required to go through any of these services, then if they simply say, “No, not doing it.”—it’s under clause 19(4) of the bill, in fact: “A relevant person”—a criminal terrorist—“who withholds, or withdraws, informed consent [to one of these programmes] does not breach the relevant requirement for the purposes of section 31”.

So what we’ve got in this bill is all these freedoms given to the criminal terrorist but, at the same time, the public are duped with the concept of the courts being able to apply all these controlled circumstances on the criminal terrorist who turns up here. Well, I’ve got to say that there is no way that this bill is adequate for the protection of New Zealanders against people who would come into this country, want to live here, and enjoy the freedoms that we have here, but show no will to change the way that they operate. And, remember, they are criminal terrorists—we know that.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): This has got quite a substantial amount in Part 2, so I’m not prepared to put that leave yet. But I would recommend to members that they speak to Part 2 and perhaps not be nearly as repetitious or, actually, boring, as some of the contributions have been. It should be fresh material. There’s plenty to choose from, so I would invite the Hon Mark Mitchell to lead in that fashion.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I don’t know what you’re talking to, but I’ve raised in every speech I’ve had a new aspect of this bill, demonstrating its inadequacy—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Well, I admire the leadership, and the Hon Mark Mitchell can—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and not one of those thoughts has been answered by the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Mark Mitchell can continue in that fashion.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s another question I have for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, carrying on the theme that the Hon Gerry Brownlee was talking about. It is that when we have someone returning to New Zealand that has chosen to go and operate in a country like Syria and that has been involved—and we have the intelligence to say that they have been involved—or has been the sponsor of or has been supporting some type of terror activity, they pose a risk when they come back to New Zealand. This new definition that’s been introduced, thanks to our friends over here in the Green Party, is “real risk”. What does “real risk” mean, because, to us, all we’ve seen is a raising and making it harder for our intelligence agencies to use the intelligence and information that they have to be able to make a case or show that someone returning to New Zealand is a risk.

I’m not willing—I’m not willing—to move those tests and make it easier for someone to come back to New Zealand and walk out through the arrival gates and out into the community. I think there has to be a real test, a robust test, that’s provided. And, by the way, please, someone take a call—maybe the Greens could do this—and explain to us what the difference is between—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Get some new material.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —the definition of a “risk” and the definition of a “real risk”. Take a call, Chlöe Swarbrick, and actually explain to us what is the difference. What’s the difference between risk and—she doesn’t know. She doesn’t know and has got absolutely no idea herself what that means.

So someone take a call and tell us, because I’ll tell you what—I’ll tell you what—I actually feel that if someone is arriving in our country that’s chosen to travel to Syria and has chosen to associate with known terrorists and comes back to New Zealand, we want to know what they’re doing. We want to know what their intent is. I don’t want them to walk out the departure gate at Auckland Airport and jump into a car and drive down to the Auckland Viaduct—and we’ve seen these low-tech attacks happen all over the world—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: The only actual terrorist attack was from an Australian white supremacist.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and go and drive into a crowded cafe and kill Kiwis, right? So take a call. The Greens now, apparently, seem to have found their voice. Stand and take a call. If you’ve got an issue to make and if you want to talk to this bill, then take a call and make your point.

The other thing that I’d raise is, quite simply, this: the Police, in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, told us they were very clear about the fact that, if a control order couldn’t be put in place and the Customs Service could only hold the person for four hours, they couldn’t get surveillance in place in time.

So I want to know. I want the Minister—and I’ve asked this question now, Madam Chair, and this is the fourth time that I’ve asked the Minister for a response and to answer in detail—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Yep, that’s right—very repetitive.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, that’s right—it is. Have we had a response from the Minister? It’s a very clear—very clear—question. It’s fundamental to the purpose and the intent of this bill. It fails at the first hurdle. Not one Minister has been able to stand and give this committee a clear answer in terms of how we will get a control order in place when the police and the agencies responsible for actually using this legislation have very clearly told us, through the select committee process, that they cannot do it. So I think it is a very important matter.

I’d like the Green Party to stand and explain to us, tell us how it’s going to work. I don’t think you can. I don’t even think you’ve read the bill, either. I don’t think you’ve got any understanding at all in terms of what was said. I’ll tell you one thing. I’ll tell you one thing.

Simon O’Connor: The great experience of Chlöe Swarbrick.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, that’s right. I’m sorry, but are we going to trust you with our national security? Forget about it—forget about it. The rest of the country aren’t going to trust you either, trust me on that one.

I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, to be able to stand and explain to us the difference between “risk” and “real risk”, and tell us how a control order is going to be put in place. I’m glad to see that he’s getting advice. We might actually now get an answer. Explain to me how a control order—an interim control order—is going to be in place for someone that arrives at our border that we weren’t already notified of. The High Court has to issue a control order before they leave the airport where they’re relying on shonky legislation.

The poor old Customs officials that appeared in front of the select committee tried to make the point that actually they operate under a very different piece of legislation. Tell us, Minister, how, without breaking the law, they’re actually going to hold someone for four hours. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So tough. Amazing. Wow.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Votes will be conducted in silence. The Hon Mark Mitchell has been here long enough to know that rule. Please comply with it.

The Hon Mark Mitchell’s amendments to clauses 16, 17, 18, and 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 420 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 415.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 421 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 16 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Mark Mitchell’s amendment to clauses 20 and 24 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 419 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 422 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to insert new clause 21A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 423 in the name of Paulo Garcia to clause 24 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of Simon O’Connor to clause 25 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 425 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 31 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be a—also, this is on Schedule 1, Part 1 isn’t it? Now that I’ve risen to my feet. Schedule 1?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s correct.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Just Schedule 1 rather than Schedule 2 as well? We do those as separate discussions?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s correct.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Fantastic. Just making sure; I don’t want to intrude. Look, I’ll only take a short call on Schedule 1. I think it’s probably important just to draw attention, I suppose it’s twofold, to an appropriate provision here to ensure that everything that’s happened before this Act becomes law, if that’s not presumptuous, can be used.

I suppose it does sit within the wider realm of this particular piece of legislation, which is that we are trying to rely on a non-evidential framework in order to provide, if you will, evidence to bring about the control orders. I think it’s prudent that this has been put in here. It’s more usual that Schedule 1s have a much larger transitional setting as is put down here—the “person’s conduct before the commencement of the Act may be relied on”. I suppose we just want to get some surety from the Minister that “may” is strong enough. It in some ways must be relied on. We are very keen on understanding their conduct. Fundamentally, as a civil rather than criminal bill, there are no evidential standards here in New Zealand, no evidence that can be applied, so we will absolutely be relying on the person’s conduct.

I suppose it’s also wanting some assurances from the Minister in what will be a short call, that with the—well, the very nature of the Act; the Minister himself has indicated this is a response to things which are happening. We do know—and we won’t go into the numbers in this committee here, but for those of us, we know of the numbers that are returning. We will be absolutely reliant on that.

So I suppose it’s really just a very short and simple call on this one to affirm—good to see it there—and just to ask the question of whether the word “may” really should be “must”; that the person’s conduct before the commencement must be relied on, fundamentally, particularly those coming back early. That will be the key evidence that’s required. So that’s just my contribution on Schedule 1.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Hang on, what about Schedule 2?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, it was my error, and Simon O’Connor got an added bonus. We don’t have a debate on the Schedule, but we do have a debate on clauses 1 and 2. My apologies, but I—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, Madam Chair, that’s quite unreasonable. I would’ve taken a call on the Schedules had it not been for your instruction to the committee. That’s not at all satisfactory.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I really appreciate your guidance.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little, and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Andrew Little, to Schedule 2 be agreed to:

after “Is the court satisfied that the relevant person poses a”, insert “real”.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): There is no debate on Schedules. It was my error. There will be no points of order while I’m taking a vote. Simon O’Connor asked me—my error—and I allowed him to spend five minutes making a contribution because it was my error in calling.

Clauses 1 and 2

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I feel risky now, taking a call, but I will take one on the title and commencement, now that I’ve found them there. Look, fundamentally, that this is coming after Royal assent makes absolutely perfect sense. I suppose it’s just a quick affirmation, for want of a better phrase, that there are no delays. I think enough culpability can be put around the Parliament for when this should or should not have been done. This Government’s been here for two years; the argument, of course, goes that we were here for nine. The recent actions, though, as we say, that particularly have come out of Syria and particularly the Turkish invasion, which led to the opening of the prisons and so forth—so just affirming that the commencement date is appropriate.

I suppose I do take a little bit of question with the title. I think the intention is that it’s a Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill, and I won’t necessarily have some great examples of what it should be called, but the umbrage that this side has is that we are worried that, actually, the control orders are not sufficient enough. I think we’ve attempted to illustrate on this side of the Chamber that the controls, if you will, at the will or whim of the court—that there’s contradictory clauses here, that, actually, something can be put forward, that there’s all these controls around, say, bank accounts and financial arrangements but that you move on to the next clause and they say, well, actually, you’ve got to take in the financial wellbeing of the terrorist—it’s created contradictions. The place of informed consent and so forth also changes the nature of how well this will control.

So one of my fundamental and earlier points, which is then illustrated in the title, is that this is not actually going to bring about that which it says it wishes to do, and so calling this a “Control Orders”—yep, there’s an element of control. There are orders, to a degree, but it’s funny and paradoxical, if not sad, that the orders themselves can be somewhat contradicted by the terrorists and that, ultimately—is this going to suppress terrorism? I suppose that the fear, the concern, in a more rational sense, on this side of the Chamber is this will not actually suppress terrorism. The intention is right, some of the structures are right, but the fundamental issues remain that this is wide, wide open as a bill—doesn’t matter if people are under 18, whether we have sufficient intelligence that can be, rightly or not, shared within the courts, that the control orders do not last for a long time. So we have a concern that the title is in some ways misleading or could be seen as misleading. It’s not going to suppress terrorism, certainly not overseas. We fear that it may not suppress it sufficiently here in New Zealand, and the control orders we see as relatively weak.

But, again, with that short contribution here on clause 1 and 2, just to indicate we would like to see a title change which is far more indicative of what we feel on this side of the House is a weak bill, and the commencement itself—it makes sense that it’s so quick, but, ultimately, and if I might finish on these, it’s what I’ve hit many, many times in my contributions tonight. The problems we see, in my opinion, are low probability, but probable they are, and their risks are immensely high. So perhaps the title is ultimately that this is an ignoring, if you will: the “Terrorism Suppression (Low-probability, High-risk Ignoring Control Orders) Bill”. But, anyway, I’ll finish there with my short contribution.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, makes a good point. The title does not describe this bill. It should be the “Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders—If the Criminal Terrorist Agrees) Bill”, because so much in here is a complete compromise on the statements that are made in the bill by the conditions that are also in the bill for the criminal terrorist to have a view about whether or not those control orders should apply to them. Even the Schedule in the bill that sets out the process for how the bill works is said, right at the start of the bill, to be a diagrammatic of decision-making control set out which, of course, is intended only as a guide. So there’s nothing in here that’s fixed—nothing in here that is permanent. This is very much a sort of optional arrangement.

It is an incredibly weak bill. The title is misleading, and it should be altered to reflect the perilous position that the country still remains in should any of these people manage to slip through the borders with one of these weak control orders put upon them, where, of course, they’re not even going to be monitored; they’re just going to be wondering around the place. The title should reflect the fact that the benefit of the doubt largely goes to someone who, in the first place, has been identified as being formerly involved in criminal terrorist activity. Actually, the only part of the bill that’s right is how that’s described.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. So we’re speaking to Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 on the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You’re welcome.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do appreciate your instruction on exactly what we’re talking about here. I’ll take just a very short call indicating that this is a bill that we are supporting. It is one of those bills that probably falls in line with a great deal of the work that gets done in this House where there is generally agreement. It is making provisions that should be accepted that are sensible in the law. With those comments, I think I will now resume my seat.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. In fact, as I said in the second reading of this bill, this was work that the previous National-led Government initiated because we saw some need for work to have financial assurance around any potential offshore spill, which I think not only would every New Zealander agree with but the operators who have offshore installations fully accept their responsibility and part to play in ensuring that our environment is protected.

Just the other day—I think it was yesterday—the Hon Julie Anne Genter proposed a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 417, which would enable those certificates of insurance to be altered. Obviously, this is applying to one particular company. We feel that there is some sense in that—that those companies do want to comply with the intent and spirit of this legislation. So we support that SOP, and we think that, of course, all of these are rational provisions put in place to ensure that the environment, which we love, is continued to be cared for and protected and that every element is put in place to mitigate any risk.

That’s all I really want to say at this point in time, because I think that’s the only change that’s really come this way. But can I just assure, as I’ve had conversations with the sector regarding that SOP, that there is commitment to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 417 in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter to clause 7 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 10 December.

Part 1 Amendments to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, we now move to further consideration of the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill. When we were last debating this, we were up to something really interesting, and I’ll just find out what it was—hold the line please, caller. When we were last debating this bill, we were considering Part 1. The Hon Kris Faafoi had the call, and he has four minutes remaining, should he wish.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 412 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill without amendment, the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill with amendment, the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill with amendment, and the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a great pleasure to see such fantastic progress moving through the House this evening with some passionate contributions being made from around the House this evening on some much needed legislative changes that we’ve all been so desperately waiting for.

We’re only a few sleeps away from Christmas now. We can count down those days. But the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation for some—respecting the word and the name and the brand “ombudsman”, and yet enabling the role to be regarded by the public and giving it a certain je ne sais quoi, a certain respect and understanding that the role that it plays is very important.

The ombudsman does play a very important role. It’s the place that we go to when we feel like there is no other place that we can go to—an overarching body that can give an impartial, completely independent view on a situation. It can judge Governments, it can judge individuals, and it can give opinions and have power to invoke positive changes for public interest’s sake and for individuals and for certain issues.

The Ombudsmen protection bill for that brand is very important. We have seen the use of the term “ombudsman” in other countries to be overused and prolifically under-utilised, therefore reducing its power and equity within a community. We in New Zealand believe that that should be protected in New Zealand, which is why we are ring-fencing that term and giving it a very serious high profile position that it does deserve.

We do believe that this bill is important. Some people think that it doesn’t require the amount of time and effort and energy. I’m not going to give it a huge amount of time, but we do commend this bill to the House, because it deserves to go through and the people of New Zealand need to understand that the very important and well-respected brand of ombudsman has a very strong role to play, which is why we will commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): National does not support the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. We do, indeed, believe that this bill is not necessary and is, effectively, wasting the House’s and select committee’s time. The member who has just resumed his seat, Clayton Mitchell, cited exactly the reason why National does not support this bill. The member cited unspecified overseas countries where the ombudsman’s name is overused. Well, that’s simply not the case in New Zealand. As it currently stands, the term “ombudsman” is rarely adopted and rarely used, so indeed there is no problem to be solved. So this bill simply is a space-filler in the Order Paper, in order for this Government to look as if it’s doing something.

The National Party took a very strong part in the select committee process, and it is our view that while there is a savings provision contained in this bill under new clauses 2 and 2A, in Schedule 1AA, the savings provision would allow the Banking Ombudsman Scheme and the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme Incorporated to continue to use the name, because they have permission, if you like, to do so, but they would not be able, in the future, to change their corporate structure and still continue to use that name. So they would therefore be caught in a certain period in time. They are known as the ombudsman schemes and they should continue to be used as the ombudsman scheme.

This is a bill which is looking to solve a problem which simply does not exist in New Zealand, and National does not support it to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak to this Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill in what appears to be one of the calmer moments that we’ve witnessed in this Chamber in the past few hours.

This is a common-sense piece of legislation; it’s interesting to hear from the National Party that it’s unnecessary and that it’s a waste of space. I hope that they contribute some great ideas at the committee of the whole House stage up next. But none the less, as this is common sense, it doesn’t require that much more contribution. The Green Party supports this bill.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): National opposes the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill; however, we will work together with Government MPs to improve the bill. National oppose the bill because we believe it is a waste of Parliament’s time. The bill simply transfers the power regarding protection of the name of “ombudsman” from the ombudsman to the Minister, and attempts to address a problem that does not really exist.

If we read the Ministry of Justice’s regulatory impact statement—or RIS—we can see that the officials are not enthusiastic about the bill at all; they simply can’t find any good, convincing reasons to justify such a Government bill. Officials say, on page 3 in the RIS, that the evidence certainty for the bill is low. They are not even confident that they are well positioned to produce an analysis and give advice to the Cabinet because of “A lack of empirical evidence about the nature and extent of the problem” and “Key gaps and assumptions in the data or analysis” and “Insufficient consultation and information to inform analysis or test assumptions.” So I oppose the bill.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. I’m delighted, if not somewhat surprised, to be speaking on the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. You know, sometimes things come in front of this House that the other side might wish to ridicule; they might wish to make cheap political points, but I am shocked that they would choose to take that tack on something as important as protecting the name of the “ombudsman”.

The thing is that the ombudsman role is vital in our democracy; it is a layer of protection to ensure that people who live in this country can have a fall-back, I suppose—a check on a check; a balance on a balance. That is what an ombudsman is. Yet that other side of the House is willing to have it flailed about willy-nilly by any character, any rooster that pops into town.

What if I wanted to come into town and open up an “Ombudsman’s Advice Service”? I might change my name to “Ombudsman”, and it would be entirely appropriate. Kieran “McOmbudsman”, I might change my name to, and that might allow me to open up a financial advice service, and in doing so, I would give my service an artificial veneer of credibility just because of the use of the term, and we say that is wrong—that is utterly wrong.

For nine years, the previous Government flailed about with this opportunity and loophole available to people, and I say, thank God no one used it. But the Hon Andrew Little came along and said, “Here is a loophole which we will not stand for and we will fix.” So what this bill does is it protects the integrity of the role of the parliamentary Ombudsman.

I note that the Minister, in his second reading speech, acknowledged the work of the Governance and Administration Committee—and good on them. So here we are at the second reading, with an opportunity to reflect on the changes that the select committee made. I note that there were 11 submitters, of which six presented orally. I think that’s a tremendous strike rate—that is a marvellous strike rate. It demonstrates the interest in something of this nature. I refer to something that came in front of this House on a members’ day not that long ago. For here we have the National Party, speaker after speaker after speaker, saying that this is not important and it’s not needed, and that no one cares. Yet this had a total of 11 submitters, a sum total of 10 submitters more than Todd Muller’s member’s bill, which the National Party stood there and said. “This is vital that we pass for the benefit of cooperatives around the country.” What is good for the goose is good for the gander—that’s what I say.

Here we are with an opportunity to make sure that the use of the term “ombudsman” is prohibited from use aside from those that it was intended. Now, I’m sure it’s on the tip of our tongues that we acknowledge that the name “ombudsman” is currently protected under the Ombudsman Act 1975. I have to say that it’s been a privilege. I commend this bill to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): We are absolutely opposed to this bill because it’s a complete and utter waste of time. In the 10 or 15 seconds that I have left, I wish this House to be aware that, actually, there are more important things for this House to do. The Chief Ombudsman was in the Governance and Administration Committee today, and I have great respect for him—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m very sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the chair. The House stands adjourned till 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.